Justice Korsgaard argues that The Chosen is Christian propaganda because its creators openly want it to strengthen faith. Here is why that argument defeats itself before it starts.
THE TITLE CLAIM: “The Chosen Seasons 4 & 5 — It’s Getting Complicated”
The video shows that a Christian show made by Christians promotes Christianity. That is not a complication. That is the show working exactly as described.
The gap between what the evidence shows and what the video concludes is this: a show doing exactly what it said it would do is not propaganda. It is just a show.
VIDEO SCORECARD
Korsgaard watched the show carefully and engages with real scenes. But the conclusion he builds from that watching collapses the moment you ask one question: what exactly did you expect?
Watch the original video, then read why the argument doesn’t hold up.
HOW TO READ THIS TABLE
- Completely Unfounded The conclusion is logically invalid regardless of whether the facts are true.
- Deliberately Misleading The facts cited are real but are used to create a false impression.
- Exaggerated There is truth here but the conclusion goes further than the evidence allows.
THE QUICK VERDICT
| Argument Made | Fallacy Used | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| A Christian show promoting Christianity is “propaganda” | Circular Reasoning (proving the point by assuming the point is already a problem) | Completely Unfounded |
| Advocacy art is suspect when the belief being promoted is Christian, but not when it aligns with the critic’s own worldview | Special Pleading (applying a standard only to one side) | Completely Unfounded |
Justice Korsgaard reviews seasons 4 and 5 of The Chosen, a crowdfunded series about the life of Jesus. For most of the video he functions as a fair reviewer. He praises the acting, the writing, the production design. He watches closely and engages with specific scenes.
Then he lands on a conclusion that the show’s openly stated Christian purpose makes it propaganda. And that’s where the logic stops working.
But a few of the core arguments don’t prove what they claim to prove. And those gaps matter.
[[12:53]] A Christian show promoting Christianity is called “propaganda”
“it’s getting harder to ignore that this show is ultimately Christian propaganda. And that’s not speculation. The creator and actors have not been shy about that. That their goal with this show is to strengthen people’s relationship with Christ.”
Justice Korsgaard, 12:57
FALLACY DETECTED
Proving the Point by Assuming It’s Already a Problem
(Circular Reasoning)
This fallacy treats something as a conclusion when it was already baked into the premise.
How it appears here: Korsgaard says the show is propaganda because it promotes Christianity. But the show is about Jesus. Made by Christians. Who said from day one it was about faith. Calling that propaganda is just describing the show and adding a negative label. There’s no argument in between.
The word “propaganda” implies the audience is being manipulated without knowing it. But Korsgaard’s own evidence is that the creators are completely transparent about their goal. The show is called The Chosen. It is about Jesus. It is made by people who believe in Jesus. It is funded by people who believe in Jesus.
There is no hidden agenda to expose here. The agenda is the title.
Korsgaard even admits this directly: “That’s not speculation. The creator and actors have not been shy about that.” He then uses that transparency as the evidence for the propaganda charge. But transparency is the opposite of propaganda. You cannot be deceived by something that told you exactly what it was going to do.
This is circular. The argument is: the show promotes Christianity, therefore it is propaganda, therefore promoting Christianity is a problem. The premise assumes what it needs to prove. No step in that chain does any actual work.
Bottom line: a show that openly states its purpose and delivers exactly that is not propaganda. It is just a show keeping its promise.
[[14:08]] The show’s persuasive intent is treated as suspect in a way other advocacy art is not
“it really seems like this show is concerned with people converting to Christianity. Not as much so they can, you know, be inspired by Jesus’s teachings to be kinder to their fellow human being, but more so they can recognize that Christianity is the correct religion and get to go to heaven. Which is such a weirdly high stakes, ambitious goal for a TV show to have.”
Justice Korsgaard, 13:56
FALLACY DETECTED
Applying a Standard Only to One Side
(Special Pleading)
This fallacy holds one group to a rule you don’t apply to groups you’re not criticizing.
How it appears here: Korsgaard says it’s “weirdly high stakes” to want a TV show to change what people believe about God. But films like Cosmos, An Inconvenient Truth, and The Big Short all openly aim to change how viewers see the world. Nobody calls those propaganda. The only difference here is the belief being promoted is a religious one.
Korsgaard draws a line between “be kinder to people” and “accept Christ as your savior.” He treats the first as a legitimate goal for a show, and the second as suspicious. But that distinction reflects his own values, not a principle he applies consistently.
A documentary made to move audiences toward atheism is doing the exact same structural thing. It uses compelling storytelling, emotional scenes, and a confident narrator to shift what you believe at a deep level. The mechanics are identical. The only variable is the direction of the push.
If “trying to change someone’s core worldview through art” is the standard for propaganda, then most of the video essays on Korsgaard’s own platform qualify.
The standard he uses here is not “is this art trying to persuade?” Every piece of art tries to persuade. The standard is actually “is this art trying to persuade people toward Christianity?” That is not a logic test. That is a preference.
Bottom line: the propaganda charge only sticks if you apply it selectively. Applied consistently, it describes most advocacy media. Korsgaard never explains why this case is different.
The core claim of this video is that The Chosen becomes harder to enjoy once you recognize it as Christian propaganda. But the premise collapses under a single question: what were you expecting?
This is a show about Jesus. Made by a Christian director. Funded by millions of Christian donors. Starring an actor who plays Jesus and speaks publicly about his faith. Walking into The Chosen and being troubled that it promotes Christianity is like walking into a church and being surprised the pastor is preaching. The institution told you what it was. You chose to enter.
Korsgaard watched five seasons. He plans to watch two more. He calls the craft excellent. He says the characters moved him. That is not the experience of someone being manipulated by propaganda. That is the experience of someone who found genuinely good art inside a tradition he doesn’t share. That is actually the more interesting story, and the video almost tells it.
The propaganda frame gets in the way. It reframes a fair personal reaction, “this show wants to convert me and I’m not going to be converted,” into a structural critique the evidence never supports.
WHAT THE VIDEO LEFT OUT
- The show never hid what it was. Every funding campaign, interview, and press release stated the show’s faith goal openly. Viewers opt in knowing exactly what they’re getting.
- Transparency cancels the propaganda charge. Propaganda works by concealing intent. A show that announces its intent cannot meet the definition, regardless of how persuasive it is.
- Secular advocacy films use the same playbook. Emotional storytelling designed to shift deep beliefs is the structure of every successful documentary and message film. The method is not the problem.
- Enjoying art you disagree with is normal. Korsgaard praises the show across five seasons. That is engagement, not manipulation. The two things are not the same.
- The “weirdly high stakes” framing cuts both ways. A video essay trying to move an audience away from Christianity has the same stakes. Korsgaard never accounts for that symmetry.
- The real complaint is simpler than the argument. An atheist finds a Christian show too Christian in its later seasons. That is a legitimate personal reaction. It does not require a propaganda framework to express.
The Bottom Line
This video used these logical fallacies to try to make you believe that a Christian show openly promoting Christianity is a suspicious cultural product worth being wary of.
- Proving the point by assuming it’s already a problem — treating transparency about a Christian purpose as evidence of propaganda
- Applying a standard only to one side — calling religious belief-change through art suspect while ignoring that secular belief-change through art works the same way
What to listen for next time: when a critic frames a thing doing exactly what it said it would do as somehow deceptive, pause right there. The confident tone and careful scene analysis make the leap feel earned. But “this show is Christian and promotes Christianity” is a description, not an indictment. Ask whether the conclusion would survive being applied to something the critic actually likes.
Leave a Reply