Red Flags within The Chosen

Introduction

Created by Dallas Jenkins in 2017, The Chosen is a multi-season television series dramatizing the humanity of Jesus from the viewpoint of His disciples. Unlike The Gospels which testify to eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life with 100% accuracy, Jenkins' series is admittedly less than 5% factual, with Jenkins creating the remaining 95% of the show's content. The show's overwhelmingly hypothetical content has not precluded its being billed as historical drama. Nor has Jenkins' fictionalization of The Gospels in any way hindered the credulity of his fans or dampened his show's global appeal. On the contrary, Jenkins 40% unchurched audience is not only characteristically unaware of the show's Biblical anomalies and aberrations, it has welcomed Jenkins' creative license with unprecedented zeal, as has an ecumenical mix of Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and even Muslims. With over 280 million viewers, The Chosen has been called the most popular faith-based television series of all time, although Jenkins himself has equivocated on the "faith-based" purpose of his show in preference for artistic recognition. This recognition has indeed come from multiple sources and even from Hollywood itself.

Controversy Amid Popularity

To deny that this enormously popular show is controversial is impossible.  Not everyone loves The Chosen. And those who do not are standing up and standing out, despite considerable backlash from The Chosen fans and from Dallas Jenkins himself. When you have intellectual "greats" like Voddie Baucham and John MacArthur speaking out against the show or faithful discernment voices like Brylan Riggs or Justin Peters sounding the alarm, you would think someone would listen. But the trend has been to paint anyone who disapproves of such a "great tool of the Gospel" as a Pharisee. Aside from the fact that the Pharisees were wicked hypocrites who crucified Jesus, this is at best a false analogy since the Jesus of The Chosen is hardly Jesus. And if the show is almost entirely fiction, who says I have to like it or be a hypocrite?

Red Flag Number One

Judging from the judging that spews against non-fans, it would appear that fans of The Chosen have a cultish loyalty to the show that almost defies explanation. If what is so enamoring about the show is its depiction of a kind and compassionate Jesus, couldn't we expect that some of that kindness would rub off on the show's viewers who hate anyone who doesn't love the show? Especially when so many viewers boast almost no real Bible knowledge, to have them denounce well-known Bible scholars as Pharisees because they do know their Bibles well is alarming indeed. I have followed The Chosen blog comments to this effect for years and have been repeatedly sickened at the default nonargument that those who knew their Bibles best were the same ones who crucified Jesus. Not only is that statement patently false, as Jesus Himself proved (Matthew 22:29; John 5:39), the natural conclusion these fans have reached is that knowing the Bible turns one into a Pharisee. If Jenkins is hoping to turn his fans into Bible scholars, he has not yet succeeded when the prejudice against using the Bible as the measuring stick for his show is obvious.

Red Flag Number Two

Red flag number one flies right beside red flag number two: the show’s divergence from the Scriptures.  If fans are following Jenkins himself with an almost cultish fever, it stands to reason that they are not following the Scriptures. But the show itself makes clear that Jenkins holds truth very lightly in his hands. With only 5% of his material coming from Scripture, Jenkins would have to admit that, without divergence from the Scriptures, his show would not exist. Jenkins' repeated contention that his show never contradicts Scripture is a bewitching argument when it is quite naturally impossible to contradict something that isn't there in the first place. Technicalities aside, Jenkins' show contradicts the very admonition in Scripture against adding to Scripture, and yet Jenkins dances around this by saying his show is not intended to be Scripture.

Jenkins' show even contradicts its own billing. It claims to be historical fiction in a sense that is not historically defensible, for there is no evidence whatsoever that the episodes that have been added in fact happened.  It is not as if these episodes have been discovered in the writings of Josephus or Tacitus or in the apocryphal gospels.  They are pure inventions of Dallas Jenkins and his writers 2000 years after they might have occurred.  At the very least, this show should be seen as contemporary fiction, not as historical fiction, its accuracy to Jewish custom notwithstanding.  This fact makes Jenkins' fans all the more indefensible when they attack Jenkins' critics. If only his fans were as loyal to God's Word as they are to Jenkins' show, most of the controversy would be settled.

But the sad fact is that, just as Jenkins seems to see his show as operating above the commands of Scripture since it doesn't claim to be Scripture--as if "art" exists in a moral universe of its own--so his fans seem to place The Chosen above Scripture for the very same reasons and at virtually every point of controversy. Inevitably, therefore, the show has driven an ever-deeper wedge between viewers who do not know their Bibles and viewers who do. When those who love the Bible more than The Chosen point out its errors, fans who love The Chosen more than the Bible often grind their teeth in irritability and frustration. Intellectual arguments don't usually fare well over emotional ones, but time after time, the show’s most popular content has been the very point of its controversy.  When the Bible itself appears to drive the wedge between viewers, we are left to fly two red flags of danger--false loyalty and Scriptural infidelity--above the alluring landscape of The Chosen.  

Red Flag Number Three

The third red flag regards Jenkins’ professed dual purposes for the show. Jenkins defends the show as “entertainment” designed to evangelize, but are these dual purposes compatible? Do you know of anyone who was convicted of sin while laughing over something silly or rooting for a sinful disciple who is "just like me"? Silly and sinful indeed is much of the content of The Chosen, from what I have read. I don't even want in my mind all the foolishness that masquerades as the "gospel" of Christ. For that matter, the "gospel" is delivered obliquely, if at all, and certainly one of the most off-putting facts about Jenkins' show is his ridiculous depiction of John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, who preached the Gospel with unprecedented effectiveness and power. But Jenkins has Peter calling The Chosen's John the Baptist "creepy John." And he does look really creepy. Rather than being a man's man, he is a disheveled wimp with effeminate features and mannerisms. Are Peter's sarcasm and mockery intended to make viewers identify conviction of sin and repentance with something totally uncool and repulsive?

Jenkins would say "no," but he is wallowing in quagmire when he leaves the solid rock of Scripture to follow entertainment of his own making. If entertainment and evangelism are compatible in some settings, they don't seem compatible in The Chosen. Jenkins' humor is both irreverent and irrelevant, and his attempts to reconcile opposites of truth and fiction fail. He may get to play by his own rules in creating his show, but he doesn't get to redefine truth. And the truth is that behind any purpose to evangelize must be a sound doctrinal understanding of how souls are won to Christ.  According to God’s Word, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).  If faith comes by seeing, and seeing by narrative—narrative that is almost exclusively fictional—then The Chosen is fulfilling its purpose.  But if faith comes by hearing God's Word--which it does--how does Jenkins justify his expressed artistic purpose not to teach the Bible? Just watch Jenkins' interview with Jordan Peterson for the answer to this question. For those of us who naively suppose that any show based on the Bible should logically follow the Bible, not so for Jenkins.

By now three red flags are flapping in the wind of spiritual discernment, for Jenkins actually believes that his fictionalized show is a better evangelistic tool than a show that strictly follows the Bible. To Jenkins and Peterson alike, a show that follows the Bible just isn't a good show; therefore, it isn't good evangelism, either. Let that sink in for a few moments. Jenkins even lifts himself above the massive popularity of The Jesus Film and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, and his show's immense popularity would seem to validate his doing so. I don't watch movies about Jesus, but I know this much: if Jenkins equates the popularity of his show with its evangelistic impact, he doesn't know his Bible very well at all. "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers treat the false prophets," Jesus said in Luke 6:26. The short answer to the question of whether Jenkins' dual purposes of entertainment and evangelism are compatible is "no."

Red Flag Number Four

Given Jenkins’ own admission that 95% of his show’s material is fiction, we might as well come right out and say that his purpose is to entertain. The reason why should be obvious: to win a profit. Why is this yet another red flag? Doesn't any producer have a right to his profits? Jenkins began his show as a crowdfunded endeavor, calling his viewers to invest ahead of filming. But nothing was as simple as that, nor were Jenkins' financial sources as pure as that. Lawsuits with LDS-affiliated Angel Studios have plagued the show in its recent past, even as significant profits are now pouring in from any number of secular sources. What does any of this matter?

If we reexamine briefly the theological damage that has already been done, we see that Jenkins began his show from the outset with the intention of reinventing Jesus. He will deny this, but the fact is as obvious as his many contradictions on any number of issues. If Jenkins didn't want to reinvent Jesus, he could have afforded to follow the Biblical script. But, by following his own imagination instead, Jenkins has shown not only evident disregard for the Biblical text but also disdain for the power of the unadorned Gospel. He invents his own bait: his "chosen's" quirks and sins and his "human" Jesus--mostly in episodes that never happened. Do we need to point out that religious filmmakers of times past considered the Bible to be its own bait?  But by creating his own script, Jenkins can justify the fact that it stretches out indefinitely. It seems obvious that extrabiblical content must of a necessity be added to prolong the life of the series.  And it doesn’t take an epiphany to realize that the immense popularity of the show would seem to necessitate dragging it out as long as possible. 

All of this could be quite self-validating, not to mention, profitable, for the show’s producers.  Jenkins’ net worth in 2024 was estimated to be between $4 and $6 million, due in large part to his success with The Chosen.  Indisputably, the show has generated profits in the hundreds of millions.  We would be naïve not to wonder if this profit is its own bait.  We would also be naïve not to wonder to what extent a profit motive will shape the show’s future content or to what extent a profit motive will also spawn untold streams of TC merchandise. Journalist Bree A. Dail exposes Jenkins' financial dealings in well-researched articles and podcasts that tell a different story than you will find in a superficial Google search. And it is difficult to deny Jenkins' temptation to any profit motive when he is himself an avid tournament poker player. Although Jenkins claims that playing poker is not gambling since it is a game of skill and since he does not play for large amounts of money, he is reported to have won $5,640 on May 31, 2025. Most of us would call that a lot of money. The fact that Jenkins doesn't is concerning in itself. Did Christ without cause warn us of the deceitfulness of riches (Mark 4:19)?

Red Flag Number Five

In an age where not only biblical illiteracy but also bitter antagonism to sound doctrine runs rampant amid mainline denominations, we are living in denial if we do not see in The Chosen’s enormous popularity another red flag.  This goes without saying, and we end where we began because all other red flags point to this one. Jesus has never been popular, at least, not for very long, and not for the right reasons. Yes, the "loaves and fishes" or "rice" Christians have been with us for centuries, but those Jenkins fans who hang on his every word in that almost cultish fever are following more than a prosperous promise. They are following a worldview that boasts of a broad road to heaven. In this road, you don't need to abandon your sins. Repentance equates to self-righteousness. If this sounds farfetched or overstated, listen to video after video of Jenkins and read the comments of his fans. Their zeal is spiritual rather than ultimately material in nature, and that is the very reason the show is so dangerous. The Chosen has appeared to quench the thirst for righteousness while creating a thirst for licentiousness. This is a bold claim, to be sure, but it is not without ample evidence.

Even popular song artist Brandon Lake referred to Jesus' disciples as "jacked up," basing his views off Jenkins' show rather than off of Scripture. Why would he do this unless he considered Jenkins' depiction of Jesus' disciples to be accurate, even though Jenkins' disciples bear almost no resemblance to the disciples in Scripture? Lake has clearly embraced Jenkins' view that sinning is normal even in close followers of Christ, and Lake's partnership with Jelly Roll, who until very recently was still in an open marriage, has stirred even further controversy over what it means to follow Christ. Jelly Roll himself has made any number of disclaimers against living a holy life, and he has cast aspersions on those who do. You will not have to look long or far to find comments such as these, and this tone of flippancy towards sin and of antipathy towards those who seek righteousness has become the central theme of Christianity in our day.

Why? Jenkins hasn't just captured a cultural Jesus; he has created a revolution in how cultures see Jesus. Almost as the "Christian" embodiment of the woke political agenda, Jenkins' Jesus is politically correct--not for his day, but for ours. He is compassionate, kind, tolerant, and funny, and he enjoys a good time as much as the next person.  His followers, as we have seen, are equally relatable as disciples who follow Jesus while retaining vices and addictions and even at times backsliding into the grip of deep sin.  Take these elements away from the show and you have a very different show.  And yet it is these elements precisely that Jenkins and his follows adamantly defend as the show’s reason for existence.  After all, we need the show to reveal to us that Jesus is human, that He is relatable, that His followers continue to struggle with addictions despite loving Him, and that His followers even backslide—and must backslide—because they are all so human. 

The validation of Jesus’ humanity amid His followers’ humanity is without a doubt not only a primary purpose but the primary purpose of the show.  Over and over, this purpose has been emphasized by Jenkins himself, and it is this purpose that most resonates with his viewers.  We must conclude, then, that Jenkins’ worldview has determined the show’s content where Scripture seems to have been lacking.  And it is this worldview that his followers are eating up like bread. Their spiritual hunger has been slacked by consuming that which is not bread but a stone, and I wonder if we read Matthew 25: 41-46 in this light if we might see that Jenkins leaves his followers starving, after all. Jenkins is selling a different Jesus. I don't know how else to put it. And this Jesus is selling indeed. People think they need The Chosen to give them a relatable Jesus.

Red Flag Number Six

It is fair to ask why the Bible is not perceived on its own to do what Jenkins’ The Chosen must do for it.  It is also fair to point out that if the Bible does not present a relatable Jesus without The Chosen, its Jesus is not relatable.  This poses a problem.  If the Jesus of the Bible is not relatable, not human, not compassionate (at least, not as compassionate as Jonathan Roumie), then how are followers who turn from The Chosen to the Scriptures to find a suddenly relatable Jesus?  And what if they do not find Him?  Or, if they do find Him, have they found Him only because they were first biased to see Him this way in The Chosen?  The argument would seem obvious:  yes, The Chosen has led people to a “Christ” that the Scriptures seem to obscure.  The Chosen does color viewers' perception of the Scriptures. And yet this possibility is denied both by Jenkins himself and by his viewers, many of whom have never read the Bible.  To this doublespeak, we raise yet another red flag.

Jenkins cannot deny his purpose out of one side of his mouth while affirming it out of the other. Anyone who has listened to Jenkins’ defenses of The Chosen knows that he believes his show points people to a Jesus they have misunderstood until now.  Their now-enlightened understanding--brought about by the "authentic" Jesus of The Chosen--is supposed to be grounded in future by a personal study of the Jesus of the Scriptures, even though said Scriptures are assumed to have obscured the "authentic" Jesus before now. Not only is this mumbo-jumbo nothing more than propagandistic doublethink, it is idolatrous. How do we know this is not a different Jesus when it is Jenkins’ 95% fictionalized show that has finally revealed Him to us? 

Conclusions

The Chosen's advertising line, “Get used to different” should give us pause.  Especially given the abundant warnings in Scripture against being deceived by the false Christs who will appear in the last days, we do ourselves and everyone we know a disservice to exempt this show from scrutiny.  It matters not that Jenkins’ purpose appears to be spiritual, evangelistic, innocuous, and even noble, especially given the backlash he has received.  Appearance is deceiving. And we owe neither Jenkins nor his fans any degree of loyalty simply because their intentions appear to be good.  We certainly do not owe them a loyalty greater than we owe to the Scriptures.  We must see without any emotional bias that Jenkins is implying that we need a mediator between ourselves and the Scriptures and that his show fills this need.  Is this any different than the false teaching that we also need a mediator other than Jesus Himself to lead us to our Heavenly Father?  With these questions, we not only raise multiple red flags but sound a five-bell alarm. 

We will examine multiple assumptions behind The Chosen in the next post.