ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary left Gallilee and travelled to Judea to participate in a Roman census. On the way Baby Jesus was born. On that census form, did Jesus’ parents tick Black, White or other as their race?
This question would probably confuse a BC man like Joseph.
In all likelihood, there was no detailed census form to fill out. In any case, the concept of race by skin colour, as we understand it today, was not prevalent in the time of Joseph, Mary and Jesus.
Many people argue that the skin colour of Jesus is as irrelevant today as it was when he was when he was born, and that what is important is his message and what he came to accomplish. Others argue that Jesus’ race is important precisely because of the way his racialised image has been used as a tool of racism and taints the message.
Christian scholars somehow came to the conclusion that Jesus and most of the central characters in the Bible were Caucasian. The “light of the world” was imagined as a gift from Christian Europe to the savage heathen races. It was a gift you could not refuse and would be forced to accept by any means necessary.
As I sat in St George Parish Church the other day, I wondered how successful Anglicans were at maintaining colour blindness when it comes to Jesus. Above the church altar, lording over churchgoers, is a gigantic painting of a white Jesus. I wonder the same thing about Jehovah’s Witnesses, every time I am handed a Watchtower magazine, with a Jesus that looks like Brad Pitt on the cover. How do people manage to purge the dominant image of the Son of God from their minds when it is constantly in their faces?
The purge may not be necessary if race is now irrelevant. The skin tone of the saviour may be insignificant to those focused on the promise of salvation.
Though the politically correct position is that race no longer matters, recent controversies indicate that in some arenas, it still does. The recent movie Gods Of Egypt came in for criticism for casting white actors in the lead roles. Ancient Egypt, which was once claimed by racist historians as their own, is now accepted to have been a dark- skinned society.
The incorrect portrayal of the skin tone of Christ is seemingly not as much an issue as the incorrect portrayal of the skin tone of Ra or Ausar.
The reason for the historically incorrect casting could be business. In 2014 an email written by a Sony movie producer was leaked to the Press. In the email the producer advised that, even though Denzel Washington was one of the greatest actors of his generation, he was not a good choice to lead certain movies since audiences were racist.
A major movie studio would probably not cast Denzel to play Jesus even though he probably looks more like the man would have than does Jim Caviezel. Jim Caviezel is the Swiss American actor who played Jesus in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ. The book of Revelations describes Jesus as having hair like wool and feet the colour of burnished bronze.
If God came down in flesh to dwell among men, even if the body he came in does not matter, he would’ve had skin. That skin had a colour. According to Revelations it was brownish.
A picture is worth a thousand words, they say. All the words in the Bible that describe the swarthy appearance of Jesus and other Hebrew characters pale in comparison to the paintings of Italian and Dutch masters, who used their family members and street dwellers as models.
I have witnessed persons visibly taken aback by paintings of a dark skinned Jesus. Though they rationalise that the colour of Jesus does not matter, when presented with an image of a black Jesus they can’t help but react. The image is so unusual.
It’s like some persons I’ve met who are critical of the use of ethnically diverse emoticons. If you send a brown waving hand via Whatsapp they see this as offensive or at least controversial. They say race does not matter. Before black emoticons they had no issue with you sending white icons.
Skin itself is a symbol. We become attached to symbols. We defend and protect them. Men kill and die for symbols like their flag, the cross or the crescent moon. The response to inconsistency in the racial rendering of fictional characters gives us a clue how attached people get.
There has been great public outcry in the US and Britain when characters from popular novels appeared on the big screen played by black actors. Reading engages the imagination of the reader as she brings to life the characters of the book in her mind. She becomes attached to the characters and what they symbolise.
The character Hermione from the Harry Potter series is being played by a black actress in the theatre adaptation of the book. Fans of the book have engaged in online debate about whether or not this is appropriate. Many have risen to defend the integrity of the character as they imagine her.
There was similar controversy surrounding black actors playing characters from the Hunger Games series and the new Star Wars movie. It must be noted that despite the negative reaction from vocal fans, these movies did do well at the box office. J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, has come out in support of the choice of actress for the theatre play.
There has been some criticism, but widespread support for African-British actor Idris Elba to become the next James Bond. It is possible that Denzel Washington could end up playing Jesus of Nazareth after all. That is, if persons become as passionate about integrity in the portrayal of Christ Jesus as they are about Bond, James Bond.
Adrian Green is a creative communications specialist. Email Adriangreen14@gmail.com