The Pixelated "Chosen"
Can a TV character save your soul?
by Brad Isbell
Nothing provides a jolt of controversy like touching the worship rails, Almost every discussion of the Second and Fourth Commandments turns into a skirmish if not a pitched battle. While some Reformed folk would slot issues connected to images, worship music, and the finer details of sacramental administration and Lord’s Day observance into second or third “tiers” of importance, the mere mention of certain ways of applying the Second and Fourth Commandments (ways that seem to comport with the plain reading of the Reformed standards) elicits howls of protest. The sharp reactions around these issues tell us that Calvin was right: worship is of primary importance. People tell you what really matters to them. Hear Machen:
In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.
Now, since I have no desire to start an actual shooting war I’ll refrain (for now) from talking about instruments, praise ditties and divine boyfriend songs, intinction, “young child communion,” non-elder scripture readers, or whether Christians should watch or even attend professional sporting events on the Lord’s Day…or eat at restaurants on the way to or from. I don’t want to be unreasonable.
But let’s talk about pictures of Jesus, not just in public worship or Sunday School rooms but in Christians’ heads—the mental images that the Westminster Divines had in mind (no pun intended).
Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
The plain reading of this answer to the 109th question of the Larger Catechism is itself based on the plain reading of the Second Commandment. Yet, it is controversial for some presbyters. Some aver that it is impossible to have, make, or use mental images of Jesus so the catechism must have overdone it. But the impossibility of keeping this commandment (not to mention the other nine) seems a poor argument for taking a pass on it or sanding its application down to a more pleasing smoothness.
Our friend Harrison Perkins wrote a fine paper on Westminster and images several years ago. Posting quotes from that article and the reactions to it prompted these reflections. In the article, Perkins showed that Westminster was not alone (as some have suggested) in its concern about mental images. It is certainly difficult to rid oneself of inaccurate images of Christ once seen. And all unscriptural images of Christ must be inaccurate. Those believers concerned with honoring the Second Commandment would be wise to avoid images on the front end rather than try to undo the damage images can do to right knowledge and to those who seek it. Likewise, elders should be concerned with visual gatekeeping; they should be watching over what is watched.
Wait, you may say, were you not talking about worship? Yes, this is about worship. Though the Westminster divines wouldn’t have used the same words, they clearly understood the following concept: Human beings do not have a worship switch that can be turned on and off (or attenuated) at will. We are hardwired to worship and we will worship something. And if Christians (whether children in Sunday School or parishioners in a worship hall) are going to struggle to avoid improper, image-assisted worship, would not it be hardest of all to avoid if someone has pointed to an image and told them “That’s Jesus”?
The effect of images is not only immediate. Our minds are the amazing not-so-hard storage drives. Our mental database is incredibly sophisticated though mysterious. Its entries, files, and folders, whether intentional or unbidden, are notoriously difficult to erase. Thus, we carry around most of the images we’ve ever taken in. Our fallen minds have fractured firewalls. We cannot keep the gates of our minds and hearts as we would or as we should.
In the interest then of keeping God’s law and shepherding His people towards right worship—the true nourishment of their souls—presbyterian elders ought to warn their people away from supposed pictures of Jesus whether made from pixels, binary code, bits of glass, or from ink and paper. The medium is too often the message, and we’ve never had more media from which to choose. Visual media is most beguiling when it moves and talks, as is the case with The Chosen, a production which we might call “Jesus, the Miniseries: This Time He’s Bingeable!” (One wonders, do fans of the series do a version of “Chosen and chill”?)
Given its availability, no pastor or Sunday School-teaching elder should assume his church members aren’t watching The Chosen. Still, opposition to the series and intentional teaching on the Second Commandment in response to it have been low-key in the Reformed world. Support of the series by evangelicals, charismatics, Mormons, Anglicans, and image-intoxicated Roman Catholics is unsurprising; the muted response to it by the confessional Reformed is a bit surprising. And troubling.
Media like The Chosen gives believers and seekers a sort of alternate track to what they read in the Bible and hear at church, providing lots of visual material and even alternate dialogue to compete with the Bible’s “data.” After watching the series, is the voice its consumers hear that of the Word of God or of edited-for-effect TV Jesus? Can the black-and-white Jesus of the Gospels words keep up with fast-paced, small-screen Jesus, who demands only 45 minutes of our lives at a time? Can one turn off this alternate track after it is downloaded?
Let us close by revisiting Marshall McLuhan’s “medium is the message”1 concept. The way I explain the concept is: A movie is first of all a movie. The content of the movie is shaped and changed by the demands of the movie medium. McLuhan himself said, “Indeed, it is only too typical that the 'content' of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium"—the character which shapes the message unavoidably.
Why does this matter? Because Christianity is first a hearing religion. The unimpressive “foolishness” of the preaching medium is suited to the Gospel message as are the modest visual media of the sacraments. We know these media are suitable and profitable because God has ordained them. If the words of scripture prompt visual images in our mind, that is natural. If we seek to create and fixate on sentimental images (even if only mental), we go astray according to the Westminster divines. Godliness with contentment is great gain—let us strive to be content with biblical data and media.
A recent podcast on The Chosen raises several issues Christians should consider:
There is yet another way that a still picture or a 45-minute serial show is injurious to true truth about God (and the God-Man): They both seek to quantify and fix in time a Divine Person who cannot possibly be contained, commoditized, or visually represented. Visual media is absolutely unsuitable to portray Christ in his two-nature, one-person existence. We should ask: Can a character who could anyone who could be portrayed in a mid-budget TV series or even a big-budget blockbuster be trusted with the salvation of our souls? Christ is utterly unique. The Spirit-illuminated word and simple means of grace (humble though they seem) are alone sufficient. Let us choose them and no other.
POSTSCRIPT: Just as Jesus does not need a video production company, neither does he need a visual marketing campaign that serves only to diminish his divine nature. Witness the He Gets Us project which has no pictures of Jesus (so far as we know) but seeks to create a marketable image of Jesus for evangelistic purposes:
Yep. Pretty much.
So, what are you going to do about it? The same thing you encouraged everyone else to do with respect to shrines to Baphomet in state capitols?
I mean, you're an RE, right? If this issue is really something that's happening in the PCA, why haven't you attempted to address it with a complaint and/or charges?
Because in the absence of such action on your part, telling other people not to take action against pagan idols seems less like principled prudence and more like justifying your own lack of zeal.