For years, we were told we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. For years, we believed it. As helpful as the metaphor has been, this only makes irony of the fact that there is no wisdom in applying it literally. Unlike a book’s binder, which is only there for stability and does not reflect its content, a book’s cover has a responsibility to represent the book. So in this sense, we should judge a book by its cover, for the same reason we should judge a TV show by its trailer.
But we must not forget Jesus’s warning that the measure with which we judge will be measured back to us. To judge a TV show is to judge its creators, and this has been happening a lot ever since the trailer for season 3 of The Chosen dropped. I already made a video fact-checking the claims about its most controversial line, but there is still plenty more to the conversation. Lately, Dallas Jenkins and his team have been very busy acting accordingly.
The show’s Facebook page even engaged a bit in the comments section early on. After a post that spotlit the line, the page received the following comment:
“I’m sad to read the comments celebrating this line. It’s not Biblical, it’s not found in Scripture. This line is found in the Book of Mormon, not the Bible. Portraying Jesus in this way is disappointing.”
To this, the show’s page responded:
“Jesus does not say he’s the law of Moses in the Book of Mormon (which Dallas hasn’t read), nor does he use those exact words in Scripture (like most things he says in the show). But either way, Dallas wrote the line for two reasons: one, he thought it was really cool and the kind of thing Jesus could say in response; and two, it’s theologically plausible. He’s the Word, he’s the Creator, he’s the Law.”
To this, I respond: Had the line been “I am the Word” or “I am the Creator,” no one would have objected. Even if it had been “I am the Law,” this is at least open enough to interpretation that it could have pointed to Christ as the perfect fulfillment of all righteousness. But the line was not any of those things.
Romans 4:14-15
For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 8:3-4
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
There is Law and there is Gospel. The Law is the reason we need the Gospel. If Jesus were the Law of Moses, then the Law of Moses would be Jesus. But when Jesus was born under the Law of Moses, it was so He could fulfill it, not become it. Jesus is not the Old Covenant. Jesus is the New Covenant. Jesus is the Gospel.
TL;DR: Jesus is not the Law of Moses. It’s not theologically plausible, and it’s not really cool either. As for what the book of Mormon does and does not say about this, I already covered that in depth in my previous video, so I’ll leave it to rest there.
But this isn’t the first time Dallas Jenkins has been met with concerns about Mormon influence. Ten months ago, he addressed this in a statement of faith video. Before I delve into this, I want to give the guy credit for a few things. I really appreciate the demeanor he maintains. The same cannot be said of the way he trolls viewer feedback in the comment sections, but at least he seems to have the right temperament in his videos.
Additionally, I’m glad he has an awareness of these concerns. He has patiently repeated that he takes this show very seriously; and, even when he’s seriously wrong, I believe him to be genuine in this. He also clarifies that it is not a replacement for Scripture, balances this with his responsibility to be accurate, and encourages prospective viewers to follow their conscience. So this a decent platform for him to build upon. Now let’s examine what he builds.
“Like, for example, if you wanted the Bible–the Word of God–delivered to you, or say, to the people of Iran, would you be upset if the people who printed the ink onto the paper disagreed with you on theology? If you found out the person who drove the delivery truck wasn’t a believer or came from a different church, would you trust that Bible less?”
~ Jenkins
This example of people distributing the infallible Word of God is certainly a vivid argument. It’s bright red, it stands up in one solid piece, it’s smooth, and it has a freshly plucked stem and leaf on top. It’s a perfectly good apple. The problem is that he’s broadly comparing it to everyone involved in the making of his show–which includes an outspoken Roman Catholic star, a Mormon studio, and the following writing consultants.
“Now I mentioned earlier that we have consultants. They include a Messianic Jewish rabbi, a Catholic priest, and an evangelical scholar.”
~ Jenkins
These details come packed in juicy segments that form a sphere, roll, and are wrapped in a bumpy, orange peel. He’s comparing apples to oranges. A printer or deliveryman will influence the consumer about as much as the camera and sound crew. But a spotlight following anyone will speak for itself, and the secular entertainment industry openly realizes this. Why are beloved actors, and even some directors, hired to appear in commercials? Can Ryan Reynolds affect the quality of Mint Mobile? In this way, the film and TV industries are much more complex in the sway they have on their viewers–and faith-based film and TV are no exception.
Before I go any further with this point, I want to emphasize the fact that I have seen this valid concern turned into a variety of problematic accusations. I’m not saying whether the accusations are correct or incorrect; I’m just saying they are made by people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Jumping to conclusions is not right, even if we jump to the right conclusions.
Proverbs 18:13
He who answers a matter before he hears it,
It is folly and shame to him.
Do I believe there are grounds for concern? Absolutely. Do I believe there are grounds for conspiracy theories that frame Mr. Jenkins as a Mormon puppet? No, and I further do not believe such theories give a good name to those trying to raise legitimate concerns. In fact, I am happy to take Mr. Jenkins at his word on the following.
“And unlike most distribution partners, ours don’t require us to change any content. They’re thrilled to distribute what we make. That is extremely rare, and we’re very grateful.”
~ Jenkins
But don’t think this lets the initial concern off the hook. It’s just basic discernment to acknowledge that if a show’s leadership has a laissez-faire attitude about being unequally yoked, the show will be more susceptible to the unwitting influence of false teaching. So if a show already has a noteworthy amount of LDS participation, and then one of its epigrams concurs with a Mormon heresy, how could people not start extending the poles on their red flags?
Furthermore, the timeline of the controversy shows that Mr. Jenkins doesn’t just see it as a necessary evil. Five months after the statement of faith video, he made another video to clarify that his defense of Mormons in a prior interview was only meant in reference to a few close friends of his. Because this drama has been replayed ad nauseam over the past two years, we will skip it and come to his most recent video on the issue, which he has called his ‘definitive, final’ comments.
“If I actually made the statement ‘Evangelicals and LDS love the same Jesus’ or ‘LDS are Christians,’ that would be a problem; and here’s why: not because there aren’t LDS folks who are Christians, and not because there aren’t LDS and evangelicals who love the same Jesus, but because it would be wrong of me to ever say that any one group believes any one thing altogether. That is just a level of arrogance that I don’t have.”
~ Jenkins
Now yes, there are infants in the faith who are truly saved, yet still need to be sanctified out of some errors, the logical conclusions of the creed they subscribe to, their membership to a false church, etc. But if we wish to properly defend these weaker brethren, we cannot do so with any sense of complacency that resigns them to continue in these. It’s not arrogance to tell them that true believers will not persist, grow, and flourish in doctrine that contradicts how God reveals Himself in His Word. The real arrogance occurs when we behave as though the buck stops with us, chalking it up to a mere personal difference instead of a Biblical difference.
It is also not arrogance to say that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon. If I identified as a Nazi, chances are you would judge me for standing with racism, fascism, and genocide. But suppose I then responded, “How dare you make such a generalization! Little do you know, I don’t actually agree with Hitler on everything! Take that!” You would deem this preposterous, and rightly so. Similarly, if someone doesn’t want to be associated with the defining characteristics of Mormonism, then they should renounce it. But if they’d rather continue taking the label of a practicing pedophile who tried to add his entheogenic visions to God’s Word, that’s on them.
Thus, true Christians in false churches like these are the exception rather than the rule. So any improvement that comes from Mr. Jenkins’s clarification is too insignificant to get him even a step closer to resolving this problem. His standard would appear to be fixated upon how much false doctrine someone can get away with, if not merely how convincingly they appear to love Jesus. But what does the Bible say about people who love Jesus?
John 14:23-24
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.
Worse yet, it could be argued that Mr. Jenkins has reinforced more problems than he has rectified, especially considering how his statements reflect back upon his statement of faith video.
“This show isn’t based on any religious tradition or particular faith perspective. It’s based on the stories in the Gospels and on history. Our questions as we approach each storyline are not about denominational considerations.”
~ Jenkins
You cannot affirm the Gospels without affirming all of Scripture–and how do you expect to do that when you are putting your Biblical consultation in a four-book box, while getting extrabiblical consultation from sola scriptura deniers? I’m not saying you should never ask these people for any input–e.g., I’m sure the rabbi has invaluable insight into the show’s cultural backdrop–but there’s too much at stake to peripheralize the need to keep your doctrine on the straight and narrow.
Finally, in a parallel video on the cause of the issue’s current resurfacing, Mr. Jenkins tells us exactly how he processes these concerns.
“I don’t worry about misperception or misunderstandings. I worry about how things are. I worry about what things are; I worry about what’s true. Worrying about what may be misunderstood, or a wrong perception about something that you say, is really gonna be crippling.”
~ Jenkins
Or doesn’t. Sure, he can’t change content post-release, he’s not going to be told what his motives were, and he can’t tiptoe around every possible way someone could twist his words. I get it. But it’s irresponsible to swing to the opposite pole of disregarding any and all potential for unintended implications.
“I started replace any narcissistic thoughts that I had or desire—what the Bible calls ‘fear of man’—any desire to get affirmation—I started to replace those thoughts with Scripture. And it became a little bit of a superpower, and I think it’s a really important principle.”
~ Jenkins
You think your lack of narcissism is a superpower. Say that again, but slower.
“Charles Spurgeon, one of the great theologians of all time—evangelical theologian—who said, ‘Christ is the law incarnate.’”
~ Jenkins
Earlier, I mentioned that one could say that Christ is the Law to a Biblical effect. This is what Spurgeon did. Unlike The Chosen, he padded it with ample context to make his meaning crystal clear. He by no means equated the essence of Christ with the essence of the Law of Moses. Here’s the quote, expounding upon Jeremiah 23:6.
“But the text speaks about righteousness too—‘Jehovah our righteousness.’ And he is so. Christ in his life was so righteous, that we may say of the life, taken as a vehicle, that it is righteousness itself. Christ is the law incarnate.”
~ Charles Spurgeon
“My consultants—you know, we have a Messianic Jewish rabbi, and an evangelical scholar, New Testament scholar, and they read my scripts. I have pastors, and I have friends … They had no problem with it. And so when people are saying, trying to explain to me why it’s wrong, trust me—we’ve already thought through these things; we take these things seriously, in advance. And so someone just commenting on YouTube isn’t just gonna make us go, ‘oh my goodness, I never thought of that!’”
~ Jenkins
This is another prime example of why impressions matter. I know Mr. Jenkins doesn’t mean that his little bubble of experts is enough for him, and that it’s not worth giving a rip about how his millions of viewers receive his content. But this statement does come off as dismissive. One of the biggest tests of a good expert is whether he allows the general public to hold him accountable. Even if he’s already thought of these concerns, he should at least be open to reevaluation—in fact, especially so.
“In many ways, it’s a figure of speech, of course; because Christ didn’t actually say these exact words in Scripture. We don’t know if He said something like that or not, but we think that it’s certainly possible. But it’s like when an ultimate authority goes to someone’s house, and let’s say they’re confronting a citizen, and the citizen says, ‘I’m gonna call the police! I wanna talk to the police!’ If that person says, ‘Bro, I am the police,’ now, they’re not actually say they’re the police; they’re saying, ‘I am your ultimate authority, what you think is the ultimate authority, what you are trying to appeal to—that’s me.’”
~ Jenkins
Okay, woah. Hold up. You and your marketing team have spent all this time defending the line as is, and arguing that it’s theologically plausible…and now, all of a sudden, you say it’s just a figure of speech and was never meant to be taken literally? Well, which is it? Of course, you’re causing unnecessary confusion in the weightiest of matters either way. I’m only asking you to get your story straight.
Ultimately, this is a situation of many small concerns racking up and multiplying into one large concern. At this point, the show’s leadership procedures have become the main concern. If they could ever just admit that they’ve made some poor decisions and commit to learning from these in the future, this would go a long way.
But what’s doubly disconcerting is how fans of the show seem to be have had their discernment clouded by the spiritual high it gives them. Open up the comments section of any post or trailer about it, and you’ll see a handful of fans that seem nothing less than spiritually dependent upon it. And if it goes on for seven or eight years, as is the current plan, this is going to get worse, not better. Still other fans have lashed out in fits of wrath at anyone who dares to scrutinize the show.
The 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ opens with a disclaimer that it is meant to reimagine the Word, not represent it. Yet Christians made no excuses for the film’s multiple blasphmies. Later, in The Chosen’s generation, Netflix released a short film portraying Jesus in a flamboyant sodomite relationship. Rightly, this was met with boycotts and a removal petition. As much as we should be grieved by such abominations from the world, how much more solemn should be our reaction to Biblical divergences that are actually meant to be taken as plausible, and are stealing the hearts of believers!
I pray that the church will not ignore these things as the release of The Chosen: Season 3 approaches.