Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 22 April 2024

In this presidential election year, the public often looks at what a candidate says he believes, and this seems like a good thing to do, but did you know that historically the religion a president professes doesn’t seem to predict his behavior or success in office?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #146 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

This is a presidential election year, and a raucous one at that, so perhaps we should pause at least once and think about whether the ultimately elected president’s religion even matters.

Let’s begin with the best. Abraham Lincoln is near universally considered the greatest president in American history. Many scholars also regard Lincoln as America’s greatest “civil theologian.” Lincoln remains the only president who used the name Jesus Christ rather than simply God in his public utterances. His Second Inaugural Address delivered March 4, 1865, stands as one of the most impressive theologically infused orations in American political history. 

However, Christian historian Mark A. Noll said, “Considerable uncertainty arises…when Lincoln’s own religion is examined. On the one hand, it is obvious that Christianity exerted a profound influence on his life…On the other hand, Lincoln never joined a church nor ever made a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs. While he read the Bible in the White House, he was not in the habit of saying grace before meals…(yet) Lincoln's speeches and conversation revealed a spiritual perception far above the ordinary. It is one of the great ironies of the history of Christianity in America that the most profoundly religious analysis of the nation's deepest trauma came not from a clergyman or a theologian but from a politician who was self-taught in the ways of both God and humanity.”

Yet if Americans had looked simply to Lincoln’s record of church affiliation and public professions of spiritual rectitude, they never would have elected him.

So, does a president’s religion matter?  Yes and No. Yes, if religion is defined as personal convictions, attitudes, behaviors, and character based upon theological understanding. No, if religion means denominational affiliation, spiritual posturing, a capacity for quoting Scripture or using its phrasing in slogans for political objectives—think Bill Clinton’s “New Covenant”—or even having the “right” view on litmus test political issues. In recent American decades the electorate and certainly the “Christian community” have focused more on the latter than the former.

Let’s look back at a few presidents. President Harry S. Truman was a gifted leader who made it to the White House on talent, hard work, common sense, and FDR’s untimely death. Truman’s presidency proved momentous, and his leadership is gaining respect as decades pass. He claimed to be a Baptist, but his penchant for cursing during radio addresses and his “Give ‘em hell, Harry” approach disillusioned many of his Christian supporters.

In 1960, pundits predicted Democrat JFK would never win the nomination much less the presidency because he was Catholic. Then Kennedy won the primary in heavily Protestant West Virginia by landslide.  After that, not many people talked about whether a President Kennedy would be subservient to the Pope. As it turned out, Kennedy’s Catholicism was in little evidence during his presidency, while his sexual adventurism with Marilyn Monroe and others took more of his time, coming to light years after his assassination in 1963. 

Following the unpopular and morally crude LBJ, a member of the Disciples of Christ, and an even more unpopular war, Republican Richard M. Nixon won the presidency on a second try in 1968.A Quaker, his presidency, reputation, and legacy bowed to resignation in 1974, the victim of his actions in the Watergate cover-up. The “law and order” President left office a lawbreaker. 

In 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter was embraced by Christians and appreciated for declaring himself “born again.” He taught Sunday School even as President. In the 2000s, Republican George W. Bushexperienced much the same, acceptance by Christians and appreciation for his saying “Jesus Christ” was his favorite political philosopher. There’s little doubt both Carter and Bush are genuine believers. Yet their political views are dramatically different, and both experienced degrees of rejection by Christians for what some consider ineffective presidencies. 

During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was regarded as deeply religious, but he rarely went to church. Reagan’s religious convictions and certainly his spiritual life are variously even contradictorily described by members of his own family.     

During the 1990s William Clinton’s administration enjoyed a good economy and is remembered for positive accomplishment. But Baptist Clinton, who claims Christian faith and discusses religious matters knowledgeably, conducted a White House affair with Monica Lewinsky, then lied about it under oath.       

Former president Barack Obama repeatedly said he is a Christian, yet some still express concerns about his religious heritage, i.e., his Muslim father and his education in Muslim schools.    

Donald Trump has a record of no real church attendance, earlier lived a promiscuous life with multiple marriages, and said he never asked God for forgiveness because he didn’t know of anything for which he needed forgiveness. Yet while President, Mr. Trump held up the Bible in a photo-op in front of a Washington, D.C. church and he has consistently defended religious liberty. 

President Joe Biden makes a show of being Catholic, crosses himself publicly, but some American bishops say he should be denied the Eucharist because of his views of reproductive rights. Biden promotes abortion on demand to birth, calls it a constitutional right, pushes this view on other nations of the world as a requirement to qualify for US foreign aid. He is also known for roaring temper, a filthy vocabulary, and questionable financial ethics.

Have you heard the expression, “Americans get the President they deserve”? What this means is that Presidents are often more a symptom than a cause. Yes, who they are is important and can influence the course of the nation’s future. But who elected them in the first place is what’s key.

For example, about 68% of Americans consider themselves Christians, but only 6% of Americans hold a biblical worldview. Less than half of those who self-identify as Christians actually “born again.” And when you look deeper at biblical worldview, well, beginning with older generations down to the youngest, biblical worldview understanding falls off a cliff:

65+           8% have a biblical worldview.

50s-64      5%

30s-40s    3%

30-under, 1%

Christian social researcher, George Barna, says, “The biblical worldview is shuffling toward the edge of the cliff.  As things stand today, biblical theism is much closer to extinction in America than it is to influencing the soul of the nation.” 

If this is the population electing our presidents, is it then any wonder we get presidents who are not necessarily paragons of virtue?

The US has had effective Presidents whose religious inclinations were seemingly of little consequence in their lives. And we’ve had ineffective Presidents whose faith meant a great deal to them, as well as Presidents with glaring personal issues whose religious identity was promoted. It is, therefore, difficult to escape the conclusion that professed religion doesn’t predict much about political leaders’ actions.

So, what really matters in terms of a President’s spiritual quality? The same thing that matters for the rest of us—character, founded upon worthy values. Is the political leader honest, truthful, humble, respectful, gracious, trustworthy, diligent in work, and moral? This may sound like the political leader is running for Boy or Girl Scout. But give the Scouts credit, they figured out a long time ago what makes a person a better person, and leader.  

Pay less attention to candidates’ religious identity and scripted photo-ops and more attention to the pattern of their lives.     

Scripture reminds us—“In the Lord’s hand the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him. A person may think their own ways are right, but the Lord weighs the heart.”  Prov 21:1-3

“Righteousness,” we are told, “exalts a nation Prov 14:34, not only a president’s but more importantly our own, the people’s values, attitudes, and behaviors.  

But either way, we should not worry, “for the kings of the earth belong to God; he is exalted” Ps 47:9.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. 

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024     

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 15 April 2024

Should Christians use preferred pronouns as a matter of respect for other persons, or should Christians decline to use preferred pronouns in order to speak truth?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #145 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issuesand everyday life.

“Misgendering,” a word most of us would not have recognized a mere ten years ago, is now a matter of controversy in American culture. Misgendering means “to identify the gender of (a person, such as a nonbinary or transgender person) incorrectly (as by using an incorrect label or pronoun).” For example, call a woman identifying as a man “she,” and you are guilty of misgendering.

“Deadnaming” is a similar, relatively new word, that refers to the act of calling a transgender or non-binary person by a name they used prior to transitioning, such as their birth name. Usually this involves a person who has gone from a masculine or feminine given name to one they believe better aligns with their gender identity.

Enormously successful Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has been criticized, demeaned, made a victim of efforts to cancel or silence her, and threatened with arrest in Scotland simply because she believes a woman is a woman, values her life experience as a woman, and has had the temerity to say so.

“The issue of gender pronouns has become controversial because some (activists)… want people who self-identify as transgendered to be called by their gender pronouns of choice,” what are now called preferred pronouns.

For fear of offending someone, people are being encouraged, or in many corporate environments required, to say things like: “Hi, I’m John and I go by he/him. Nice to meet you,” or in a meeting: “Hi everyone. I’m Mollie. I’m the senior program manager and I go by she/her” or “Hi, I’m Akeem, and I go by ‘they’ pronouns. How should I refer to you?”

Theoretically, “these actions help make…workplace(s) more inclusive of transgender, gender nonconforming, and gender non-binary people.”

The rationale goes like this: “Using appropriate pronouns (or new names) is a first step toward respecting people's gender identity and creating a more welcoming space for people of all genders…the bottom line is that everyone deserves to have their self-ascribed name and pronouns respected in the workplace.”

“Intentionally calling someone by the wrong pronoun (or old name) can make them feel disrespected or alienated, and can take a toll on their mental health. It is also offensive and can be considered harassment.”

Now, employees in some Christian organizations are declaring they wish to use preferred pronouns, indicating they are personally identifying as, or are at least supporting, gender status other than male or female.

Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, recently updated its policy handbook. “The college explains that stating pronouns violates school policy, and that anything beyond saying "he/him" and "she/her" is outside a “created reality of a biological binary.”

“Houghton University, another evangelical school, recently fired two resident hall directors for putting pronouns in their email signatures.” 

So, this is a current controversy, and it is not going to go away because misgendering, preferred pronouns, deadnaming, and related vocabulary battles are where the ideological wars are being fought. Ideologically driven activists know they cannot win based upon logic or science or history, or if honestly reviewed, historic religion, so they work to win with words. Change the vocabulary of the discussion and you’re halfway to victory.

This is why it is disconcerting to hear Christians, or even conservatives in general, use words like “partner,” for “it denotes no gender, no relationship status that involves exclusivity or fidelity. You can’t cheat on a ‘partner,’ you’re just partners.” This “normalizes whatever someone does sexually, and it removes gender from the mix.” It's even more disconcerting to hear television anchors replace mothers and traditional language with words like “birthing people,” “chest feeders,” “people who menstruate,” “egg producer,” or just “carrier.”

“Gender pronouns are inscrutable, but that’s really the whole point. The bane of the American left is meaning, and they’re engaged in total war…The left understands very well that if they control language, they control thought.”

But, “assenting to someone’s gender pronouns isn’t (just) a matter of politeness, or an easy means to avoid conflict, nor is it a matter of affirming someone’s preference. Bending the knee to…gender pronouns…is affirming a lie. It’s a denial of what we all know intuitively, what classical philosophy recognized as the natural law — that there are only two sexes/genders extant among humans on this planet.”

“Deny(ing) something so primal, so fundamental is intellectually and spiritually suicidal — you host and propagate the worst kind of lie, the kind you tell yourself. In doing so, you cripple your ability to reason, suffocate conscience, and unmoor yourself from reality. Moreover, having accepted the irrational, you become complicit in the self-destruction of those within your power to rescue.”

Does loving our neighbor demand we accept their false values? No. In 1 Jn 3:18, we’re reminded “let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”

Pronoun madness is a post-Christian culture malady. And now there is an ever-growing list of possible gender identities. As of late last year, 81 possible gender identity hybrids had achieved recognition, and they come with associated pronouns.

New on the block are “neopronouns.” “Neopronoun can be a word created to serve as a pronoun without expressing gender. Examples are ‘xe/xir/xirs,’ ‘ze/zir/zirs,’ ‘ey/em/eir,’ etc. (as opposed to ‘he/him/his’ or ‘she/her/hers’). With neopronouns, a person’s pronouns don’t need to reflect the gender binary. Gender becomes a creation of the individual and loses almost any connection to the physical world.”

“A subset of neopronouns is noun-self pronouns…‘a pre-existing word … drafted into use as a pronoun. Noun-self pronouns can refer to animals — so your pronouns can be… ‘kitten/kittenself.’ Others refer to fantasy characters — ‘vamp/vampself,’ ‘prin/cess/princesself’ …” In other words, a noun-self pronoun doesn’t even need to reflect the fact that you are a human being.”

“If our sexual and gender identities are no longer expressions of our biological sex and our bodies, then there’s no stopping a person from identifying as the opposite sex, no sex, both sexes, or nonhuman things like animals, objects, fictional characters, or abstract concepts. Without the human body as the source of one’s identity, ‘I am a woman trapped in a man’s body’ becomes just as plausible as ‘I am a wolf trapped in a human body.’ One’s identity is limited only by one’s imagination.”

“Pronouns have become expressions of one’s self-proclaimed identity, a claim that proponents insist that everyone must affirm—or else.” “‘Gender’ is no longer correlated to an empirical reality like the body but has become a mere expression of one’s own self-perception or self-declaration. It has become, like so many other things, a mode of expressive individualism.”

Pronoun madness is a spiritual virus to which we must respond, lovingly yes, caringly yes, never hating yes, but still, recognizing there is a different set of values being pushed upon us, upon American culture, and upon the next generations, values that are irrational, nihilistic, ungodly, and deadly.

Even “former President Richard Nixon (a person whose own moral conscience went astray) once observed that many make the mistake of thinking that conflict is the result of misunderstanding rather than difference of belief.” He was correct.

What we are talking about regarding this intentional change of vocabulary is not resolvable via dialogue around a campfire in Aspen. It’s not about two equally worthy points of view with a peaceful consensus somewhere in the middle. It’s about fundamental differences in beliefs about God, the created order, humanity created in God’s image, and truth.

I recognize that “in cases of professional or personal relationships, believers may feel that it’s best to ‘pick their battles’ rather than take a rigid stance on such terms.” I realize that for some, the choice not to use preferred pronouns, i.e. to misgender, could threaten one’s employment.  

Yet, “while Christians need to be careful and respectful, respect cannot extend to endorsing ideas that the Bible calls false.” This helps no one.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024  

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 11 April 2024

The television series, “The Chosen,” has been getting a lot of press, pro and con. Is it something Christians should watch?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #144 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

“The Chosen” is a multi-season television drama, presenting the life of Jesus Christ and his disciples, with imaginative character backstories and interpersonal conflicts. This is the third of three podcasts on “The Chosen.”

Now that we’ve considered how Bible teachings have been depicted in art, and we’ve reviewed some of the criticisms leveled at “The Chosen,” let’s take some time to simply think about the program as a viewing experience.

I. I liked the series, thought the presentation was outstanding, and was not bothered or offended by anything I saw.  

I’m not a theologian but nothing “heretical” jumped off the screen at me.

After watching “The Chosen,” I happened to come upon a series on BBC called “Jesus, Son of God,” a documentary featuring three episodes in which various academic experts comment on aspects of the biblical story, interspersed with dramatic presentations of the biblical account. I remember reacting to at least four different instances in which interpretations of Scripture were offered that I thought were off-the-wall, dismissive, or simply denying the truth as the Bible presents it. This does not happen in “The Chosen.”

In fact, the closest I came to thinking “The Chosen” was off base were a few joking references to Jesus’ father, as in a character saying, “Father, which one?”

Ha, Ha, we get it. But the “which one” joke is a modern twist that weakens the presentation of Jesus’ incarnational life.

You might find something with which you disagree, or you may not like how something is portrayed, but there are no attempts to deny Scripture, undermine it, or otherwise offer some non-Christian point of view.

II. “By far the biggest strength in this showis the relationship between the disciples, specifically the twelve whom Jesus had, well, chosen.” 

These are the backstories Scripture does not give us and thus they are intrinsically interesting, particularly when combined with excellent acting and movie making.

Some have felt these tangential stories detract from the main points of the narrative and of Scripture, but I do not think so. These backstories and plot enhancements add color and draw viewers into the overall storyline. The writers have done a good job using the symbolism of repairing a cistern, for example, as a means of illustrating key themes.

I enjoyed the portrayal of the disciples’ human frailties, attitudes, doubts, and bickering about practicalities like food, money, safety, absence of a plan, etc. – all entirely plausible to me.

III. I did not like the use of the term “occupation” in the film to refer to the Roman Empire’s control of the Holy Land.

While a case could be made for this, I guess, the term "occupation" is a modern concept and likely was not specifically used to describe the Roman Empire's control of the Holy Land during ancient times. 

The word "occupation" has been used in various contexts throughout history, but its modern usage to describe one country controlling another typically dates to the 19th century, particularly during the era of European colonialism. This usage became more prevalent during and after World War I and World War II, particularly in the context of military occupations and territorial control.

Whether this word was selected intentionally for political reasons or simply the word that came to the scriptwriter’s mind as he or she wrote, we do not know. It’s not a major faux pas; just something to think about.

IV. I also did not appreciate the repeated use of the term “lucky.” 

Several characters use this term; Jesus even wishes Matthew “good luck.” The problem is luck does not exist. In fact, the idea of luck and a Sovereign God are mutually exclusive concepts. I’d prefer that a production portraying biblical stories omit this pagan idea.

V. The production values of each episode are outstanding. 

In other words, the quality of the movie making is excellent, draws viewers in, makes it easy to imagine we are in the First Century Holy Land, and this includes period clothing, food, walking, houses, synagogues, and more.

A primary production pet peeve, though, for me is that so much of the filming takes place in the dark, nighttime or indoors with candles. I got tired of trying to see people walking around in shadows so dark it was hard to know who they were. I know this is partly a nod to period authenticity, i.e., they did not use electric lights, just candles, but there is still too much darkness for me.

VI. I have not seen criticism, which seems odd to me, regarding the Jesus character looking like Sallman’s 1940 portrait, “Head of Christ.”  

Sallman’s “Head of Christ” has been criticized as the “White Jesus” and labeled the first “Protestant Icon.” 

“Copies accompanied soldiers into battle during World War II, handed out by the Salvation Army and YMCA through the USO. Millions of cards produced in a project called “Christ in Every Purse” that was endorsed by then-President Dwight Eisenhower and…Norman Vincent Peale were distributed all around the world. The image appeared on pencils, bookmarks, lamps, and clocks and was hung in courtrooms, police stations, libraries, and schools. It became what scholar David Morgan has heard called a “photograph of Jesus.”

What Jesus looked like we do not know. We do know that in Jesus “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” Gal. 3:28.

We know that the Apostle John gave us a glimpse of heaven, saying, “there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (Rev. 7:9).

Ethnicity, race, skin color, nationality, culture are all gifts from God to enrich the human race. But none of these demographic characteristics define moral parameters or limitations or unique blessings.

VII. The fact that many of the staff, including actors, are not Christians is not a problem for me.

While it would be nice to think that they all are believers or become believers as a result of their work on “The Chosen” set, such is not likely.

This is something that confronts SAT-7, the ministry with which I serve that produces and broadcasts Christian programming 24/7 in Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish throughout the 24 countries of the Middle East and North Africa. It is very difficult, sometimes impossible, to find sufficient Christian believers as they are called there, who a) have the skills as television professionals to appear on camera or do the work behind the camera, b) are willing to be seen on air in countries that often persecute Christians, c) are able to give the time and work for the compensation SAT-7 is able to provide, etc. So, SAT-7, based upon Christian doctrinal statements and led by Christian people, at times must hire non-Christians to work off camera.

It is a practical solution and one that from time-to-time results in the non-Christian coming to Christ because he or she has heard the gospel at work. At the very least, it frequently results in reducing misconceptions about Christians among the local community.

Conclusion

Whether you chose to watch “The Chosen,” I believe, is a matter of Christian liberty (Rom. 14). If you find the program enjoyable, then watch, but watch with an eye toward discernment (Phil. 1:9-11) and compare what you see with what you read in Scripture, which, by the way, is something we should always do listening to any sermon.

Remember this is art, crafted by human beings. If the producers ever violate their commitment to be faithful to the Word of God, and I hope they do not, then you will be ready to recognize it and respond accordingly. But for now, to watch or not watch is your blessed choice.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. 

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024     

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 08 April 2024

The television series, “The Chosen,” has been getting a lot of press, pro and con. Is it something Christians should watch?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #143 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

“The Chosen” is a multi-season television drama, presenting the life of Jesus Christ and his disciples, with imaginative character backstories and interpersonal conflicts.

In my first podcast on “The Chosen” we considered how Christians have historically portrayed Bible stories and teachings in various forms of artistic expression, like paintings and sculpture. This is the second of three podcasts on “The Chosen.”

Fast forward to our time and we have available to us multiple ways to portray biblical stories and teaching via films, video, literature, and more.

Do you remember these examples?

1. “The Ten Commandments” with Charlton Heston, 1956, a beloved film wherein bleached-blonde-hair, blue-eyed Heston comes to embody Moses for most of this generation.
2. “Jesus Christ, Superstar,” a rock opera by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, 1971, a still-popular musical that Billy Graham once said bordered on blasphemy.
3. “The JesusFilm,” 1979, described as the most-watched motion picture of all time. The film has been viewed over 10 billion times by over 4 billion people, making it overwhelmingly the most watched movie of all time. 

It is officially accredited by The Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Translated Film" in history. The power of the film is its biblical dialogue - encompasses 70% of the Gospel of Luke – and its ability to be dubbed in now 2,000+ languages. The film has been credited with more than 600 million professions of faith in Christ. 

The Jesus Film has been broadcast on SAT-7 and this and other Christian movies are among viewers most-loved programs. Right now, for example, Gospel of Mark is being shown on SAT-7 PARS, the Farsi-language channel broadcast into Iran and Afghanistan. The Jesus Film Project offers several other similar, biblically based films.

4. “The Passion of the Christ” with Jim Caviezel, 2004, the highest-grossing (inflation unadjusted) Christian filmof all time, as well as being the highest-grossing independent film of all time. The film was widely praised and panned, depending upon one’s predilections. 
5. The Shack by William P. Young, 2007, a novel that made the best-seller list after the author began selling copies out of his trunk. The main character, Mack, enters the shack and encounters manifestations of the three persons of the Trinity: God the Father takes the form of an African American woman who calls herself Elousia and Papa; God the Son, Jesus, is a Middle Eastern carpenter; and the Holy Spirit physically manifests as an Asian woman. The book was called heretical by a number of prominent evangelical pastors and theologians.

At that time, I was asked to be part of a panel discussing the book at Baker Book House. I read the book, said I did not like it, but then also said this is an allegory, a fictional account, and that the book is no threat to the Word of God or his Church. I finished by saying I wouldn’t recommend the book to non-Christian acquaintances as a way to learn more about biblical Christianity.

So, in one sense, “The Chosen” is nothing new, but another cinematic attempt to tell the story of Jesus.

Controversies, Criticisms

Now, viewers bring to “The Chosen” differing theological convictions and church traditions, differing perspectives on artistic portrayal of Bible stories and teachings, and differing comfort zones with creative and artistic license. Consequently, there are and will be inevitable controversies and criticisms of “The Chosen.”

Here are a few controversies and criticisms developed during the first three seasons:

        1.     "The Chosen" says more than Scripture does.

Mary Magdalene’s spiritual relapse, S2, E5, an extra-biblical story of Mary Magdalene experiencing doubts and fears, falling back on old sinful patterns, and eventually needing spiritual rescue once again.

In Scripture, Mary Magdalene is shown to be faithful and strong, dedicated, wise, and an unwavering supporter, so some feel the producers went too far showing a backslidden Mary. While this story is not in the Bible, it certainly portrays how weak, sinful hearts can revert to wrong choices, and it demonstrated the Lord will never leave us nor forsake us.

Some viewers have criticized the married couple romantic interplay between Simon Peter and his wife Eden, S3, E1, when Simon first returns home after a long absence, they flirt a bit, and then are interrupted by an unexpected visit from Nathaniel who needs lodging, then later offers to put a pillow over his ears as he sleeps on the roof. Some considered this inappropriate for family viewing, even saying this dialogue amounted to sexual overtones and inuendos. But I think it was pretty tame, normal, and not offensive.

Another extra-biblical story features Simon Peter’s wife, Eden, struggling emotionally with a miscarriage, becoming upset with Peter because he is gone and does not even detect that she is pregnant, and once he is informed, Peter becomes angry with Jesus for allowing this to happen to Peter and his wife, S3, E5. I thought this was one of the most powerful stories in the series, not only highly plausible and exactly how human beings would react, but the story made several important points about humility, the sovereignty of God, and faith.

2. The disciple Matthew is cast as evidencing some expression of Autistic Spectrum Disorder, meaning he is a man of considerable talent with numbers, yet does not like to be touched and is socially awkward.

Here again people have gotten worked up over this. In Scripture, not much is given to us about Matthew except he is a despised tax collector. Adding this color to his personality, in my view, did no damage to the Gospel account.

3. In a similar vein, Jesus is portrayed with a sense of humor, and people have asked questions about divine inspiration regarding the Sermon on the Mount, S2, E8, a segment featuring Jesus talking with Matthew about how to begin the Sermon on the Mount, what to say, and how to say it. I liked Jesus’ sense of humor, something not seen before, and I liked how he responded to those around him, always with concern and caring.

4. Jesus saying, “I am the law of Moses.”S3, E3, a comment some took to be an expression of Mormon theology. But it should be noted that “Jesus therefore has the authority to interpret the Old Testament and its laws, which is just what he goes on to do in Matthew 5:21–48.”
5. A pride flag was visible on a camera that appeared in a promotional video that “The Chosen” released.This created a firestorm with people accusing “The Chosen” producers for going woke. But producer Jenkins later responded, reminding people that a) the production hires non-Christian professionals, b) they do not police everything these people do off camera, c) no LGBTQ+ values are represented in the show, and d) Jenkins is himself a conservative Evangelical who does not celebrate pride month.

6. The show’s creator has questionable partnerships.

“The Chosen’s” original distribution partner, Angel Studios, employs Mormons among its staff and leadership. It’s also true that some early filming took place in the LDS-stronghold of Utah.

“The LDS Issue” mostly stems from a statement Jenkins made with a Mormon interviewer in 2020, where Jenkins referred to his Mormon “brothers and sisters” and noted that “we love the same Jesus.” In a 2022 video, he offered a clarification: “Mormons are not our brothers and sisters in Christ, and through the doctrine they’ve added to the Bible, they very clearly do not worship the same Jesus.”

“The question we need to ask is, “Is this a Mormon show?” That is, “Does this show teach Mormon theology?” The answer is “no,” at least so far. Nothing in the series is promoting uniquely Mormon doctrine, or Catholic, or that of any other group.”

Now, no cinematic portrayal of biblical stories will ever be accurate in every detail. 

We should therefore watch with awareness. Is the production presenting a false portrayal to mislead viewers about the Scripture? Or is the production using some creative license, without contradicting or undermining Scripture, to help non-Christians understand and attract them to the Lord and the Gospel? Often this is difficult to assess.

Whatever the case, whenever we watch any media production, we should do so with our transformed, renewed minds turned on, spiritually discerning what is best.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com.  

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024   

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 04 April 2024

The television series, “The Chosen,” has been getting a lot of press, pro and con. Is it something Christians should watch?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #142 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

“The Chosen” is a multi-season television drama, presenting the life of Jesus Christ and his disciples, with imaginative character backstories and interpersonal conflicts. Released in 2019, with a pilot episode on the birth of Christ released in 2017, and scheduled for seven seasons, the production company is releasing Season 4 of “The Chosen” in April 2024.

Earlier seasons of “The Chosen” may be watched free online. DVDs of each season are also available for purchase. Angel Studios is the distributor.

People have begun asking me what I think of this biblical television drama, but I am late to the party, only recently taking time to watch available episodes from the first three seasons and drawing my own conclusions. This is the first of three podcasts on “The Chosen.”

The show’s creator, Dallas Jenkins (son of Left Behind co-author Jerry Jenkins), put together a panel of expert consultants to ensure biblical and historical accuracy in the script he was co-writing for the show. On the panel were a Messianic Jewish rabbi, a Catholic priest, and an evangelical professor of biblical studies.

Of course, creative and artistic license is evident and herein lies the rub underlying several of the criticisms and controversies we’ll note later.

The show’s creator, Jenkins, has said, “The Chosen’ is a narrative show, which means it’s not a documentary. It’s also not a church. It’s not a nonprofit ministry. It’s not formally connected to a denomination or faith tradition. And it’s absolutely not a replacement for Scripture. It’s a show. However, that’s not to diminish the importance of getting things right. We have an obligation to take this seriously. We are talking about the son of God here.”

“Because this is a show and not a ministry, Jenkins hires people of all faiths or even no faith at all to work onset, as any business would do. Many of the actors and actresses who are hired to play different roles are not Christian.”

“The Chosen” has a diverse cast including actors who are of Jewish, Arab, Southeast Asian and North African descent.

“Jenkins provided a “statement of faith” for the faith-based show that portrays the life of Jesus in a 2021 YouTube video.”

“The Chosen is not using the Bible as a script.” This allows for creative freedom, but then again it also makes some viewers nervous or critical.

“The Chosen has broken the stereotype of cheesy Christian entertainment.” And this I remember from my youth, watching so-called Christian films wherein Hollywood clearly did not know how to portray believers, spirituality, or religious devotion or passion, so the characters walked around bug-eyed staring off into the distance. Not so with “The Chosen.”

Jenkins “outlined four guiding principles — ‘the bedrock foundations’ — of ‘The Chosen’s’ approach to the show.

1. People of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs work on the show.

Counting the cast, crew, marketing and distribution teams, there are more than 200 people involved with “The Chosen.” ‘As long as the content itself is faithful, we’re less demanding with those who help deliver it,’ Jenkins said.

2. The primary source for the show’s content is the New Testament gospels. 

Once written, the script is reviewed by cultural consultants to ensure Biblical, historical, and cultural accuracy.

3. The show isn’t based on any religious tradition or particular faith perspective, it’s based on the stories in the gospels and history.
4. There is no effort to please or seek the approval of one person, group or critics.

‘The only one I’m seeking the approval of is God,’ Jenkins said. ‘You don’t have to agree with some of my decisions or some of the decisions of our team, but as a viewer, you should at least know that these decisions were taken very seriously.’

Now that’s the introduction, what “The Chosen” creators say the production is about and what it attempts to portray. But before we delve into the content of the show and attempt to evaluate it, let’s establish some historic and cultural perspective.

Depictions of Jesus in Art

One of the criticisms right out of the gate of any art of any kind that attempts to portray biblical stories or teachings is that it is somehow ipso facto sacrilegious for even making the attempt, let alone for what it might actually portray. I do not agree with this anti-art, anti-creative perspective because I believe God gave human beings, made in his image, the ability to be creative, to vest themselves in their work, and that his is one of the ways we act as imago Dei.

Art and communication forms are important to us. In terms of ancient history, think how much we would not know if the Egyptians had not left their history in hieroglyphics, paintings, sculptures, and architecture.

Historically, before photography and film and CGI, biblical stories and teachings were depicted in art, for example the oil paintings of the High Renaissance like Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” or Michelangelo’s The Sistine Chapel ceiling, or in sculpture, like, Michelangelo’s masterful David or his Madonna della Pietà, informally known as La Pietà, a marble sculpture of Jesus and Mary at Mount Golgotha, which is now located in Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican City. I’ve seen it.

“The earliest surviving Christian art comes from the late 2nd to early 4th centuries on the walls of tombs belonging, most likely, to wealthy Christians in the catacombs of Rome,”

On “a mural painting from the catacomb of Commodilla, we find one of the first bearded images of Jesus, late 4th century.”

“The conventional image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair emerged around AD 300, but did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West.”

“Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created,” like the Nativity Sets from around the world one can see at Bronner’s Christmas Wonderland store in Frankenmuth, Michigan.

Historically, biblical stories and teachings were also represented in music, and of course this continues along with, more recently, film and video. When artists use their divinely-bestowed creative talent to develop visual portrayals of biblical stories and teachings they make judgments – if Jesus is in the visual, is he taller or shorter, younger or older, does he have long hair, does he wear a beard, what is his skin tone, and on it goes. This kind of human investment is unavoidable and can be enlightening and enjoyable, but it also can lead to depictions that may not align with Bible truth.

It interests me that, so far, I have not found articles objecting to the fact the Jesus of Nazareth character in “The Chosen” is portrayed by an American, Jonathan Roumie, whose mother was Irish and whose father born in Egypt of Syrian descent.

In this hyper-racialized age wherein people are accused of “cultural appropriation” for daring to borrow or employ or enjoy some practice from a culture not their own, one would think a non-Jew portraying the lead character of the greatest story ever told would raise a ruckus. So far, not the case. And this is O.K. with me because I think “cultural appropriation” is for the most part politically correct poppycock. Acculturation and assimilation are two of the social inclinations that gave the American melting pot it’s social cohesion, its strength.

So, it is possible and indeed a blessing for individuals to use their creative and artistic gifts to find ways to communicate, explain, and elaborate the Scripture.

In this we are fulfilling the Cultural Mandate of Gen 1:27-28. Human beings may emulate their Creator by molding and crafting and inventing and developing new expressions of the verbal, aural, visual to develop culture and to honor God with our work.

I place “The Chosen” in this category, creative expression in the cinematic arts, fitting into a centuries-long line of human artistic endeavor in which Bible stories and teachings have been portrayed in a manner making possible greater levels of understanding and appreciation.

“The Chosen” is, as the producer said, not the Bible. It should not be considered a substitute for the Bible.

“The Chosen” is a help to anyone wanting to learn more about Bible stories, as flannel graph was to me during my Daily Vacation Bible Schools days.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com.  

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024     

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers.