I’m Dreaming of a White Jesus

Are you ready for a heartwarming Christmas story of racial sensitivity, common sense, and humility?

Well, that’s not happening. Because last week, Fox News Anchor Megyn Kelly announced to children everywhere that Santa Claus was a white man. “He just is.” And then things got weird(er), when she claimed that “Jesus was a white man, too. It’s like we have, he’s a historical figure that’s a verifiable fact.”  And then, when people flipped out about it, she backed down–kind of–by acknowledging that Jesus’ race “is far from settled.”

I’m struggling to figure out which is more ridiculous: Her claiming that Jesus was white, or this short clip from “Talladega Nights.” Oh, wait, no, it’s definitely the first one, because the second is from a comedy and isn’t supposed to be serious.

I’m not here to talk about whether it was racist (a little, right? At least a little?). But I am here to say that this kind of attitude is absolutely poisonous to the Christian faith. This willingness to disregard literally everything we know about the birth and origins of Jesus destroys pretty much everything Christianity has going for it.

This kind of attitude, this insistence that we can know so little about Jesus’ origins as to declare him a white man, boils the message of the Bible down to an Everyman Birth. “And at some place (but we don’t know where), and at some time (but we don’t know when), and to some parents (but we don’t know who), God was born into the world as a man.” Such a Jesus would be the epitome of myth, and myth alone. In that situation, we might indeed be justified in siding with those who would recreate him in their own images. If his earthly origins were so unimportant, we might even tempted to make him a mere metaphor, the “Son of God” in all of us.

From the very beginning, the Church has insisted that the birth of Jesus is an historical event, firmly located in time and space, with numerous reference points. Luke in particular goes to great lengths to place the birth of Christ in a specific time (“when Quirinius was governor of Syria“) and at a specific place (“the city of David, which is called Bethlehem,” to a specific woman (Mary, wife of Joseph), from a specific lineage  (that of David).

The Biblical account is exceedingly precise: At this time and at this place and from these people was born this man. And that means that we have no room at all for claiming that Jesus “could” have been white. We don’t even have room for “thinking” of Jesus as white, because then we would be actively building our faith on a falsehood, on a blue-eyed Goldilocks who never existed.

In fact, we have no room at all for claiming that Jesus “could” have been anything other than what we know he was: A Jewish man from the line of David and the city of Bethlehem. And there is a very good reason for thinking of him like that. Karl Barth, a German theologian, brilliantly describes what happens when we try to “generalize” Jesus:

“The Word did not simply become any “flesh,” any man humbled and suffering. It became Jewish flesh. The Church’s whole doctrine of the incarnation and the atonement becomes abstract and valueless and meaningless to the extent that this comes to be regarded as something accidental and incidental. The New Testament witness to Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, stands on the soil of the Old Testament and cannot be separated from it. The pronouncements of New Testament Christology…relate always to a man who is seen to be not a man in general, a neutral man, but the conclusion and sum of the history of God with the people of Israel, the One who fulfills the covenant made by God with this people.” – Karl Barth, “The Way of the Son of God into the Far Country”

To generalize Jesus, to claim that he could have been any race, is to utterly sever the New Testament from the Old Testament. It is to make the Christmas story merely a strange accident and an aberration. It is to tear Christmas from it’s context, history, and meaning, all for the sake of making it about me and me alone. It is an inherently selfish and senseless act.

And the truth is so much more wonderful! Because when we acknowledge Christ not as Surfer Jesus, or White Jesus, or Tuxedo T-Shirt-Wearing Jesus, but as Jesus of Bethlehem and Nazareth, then we can see his birth for what it really is: The birth of the Chosen Person, born of the Chosen People. He is the answer to the covenant God  made with Abraham those hundreds of years prior, the answer to the prophecy God made to Adam and Eve, the culmination and fulfillment of everything the Old Testament tells us about God and Israel.

Some want to think of Jesus as white, because they think it increases his relevance to them. Such could not be further from the truth. In fact, it is because Jesus was Jewish, and because he was a direct descendant of the founder of the Jewish people and of their greatest king, that he could be the Christ for the whole world.

Is it really worth losing all of that, just to make him white?

Published by

Mackenzie Mulligan

I am a graduate of Biola University and a perpetual member of the Torrey Honors Institute, and I'm also married to the extremely beautiful Anna Mulligan. I make my living as a writer (like, for a job), and in my free time I write on literally anything that strikes my mind long enough to make it onto my computer, although it generally comes back to some aspect of theology, either on Evangelical Outpost or on my personal blog (http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/). And in my spare spare time, I wrote a book! It’s called "Simon, Who Is Called Peter", and if you’re interested in the life of Jesus’ most notorious disciple, you should definitely give it a read! You can buy it right here: http://www.amazon.com/Simon-Who-Is-Called-Peter/dp/162564535X/

  • George Douglas

    Dear Mackenzie (“Mac”?),

    GREAT POST! There’s a good reason why no picture of the Lord Jesus is attached as “Exhibit A” to the Gospels, and Megyn Kelly’s gaffe illustrates it perfectly. Even if competent artists and materials in A.D. 30 or so could have rendered a perfect likeness of Jesus, two things would have happened. 1) As the drawings were reproduced through the ages they would have invariably come to look more like the people reproducing them, and 2) the pictures would necessarily suggest to whoever saw them that Jesus was only for those with skin like him. (BTW, this isn’t just a “white thing” — I’ve seen paintings of the Last Supper where everyone was black, and I have a manger scene from Central america where everyone is Hispanic.)

    I personally think that whoever wrote the Talladega Nights script for that hilarious grace scene really understood that it’s much easier for people to deal with Baby Jesus at Christmas than the risen Lord at Easter who says “Repent and follow me!”. Much easier to keep the Baby Jesus in the manger and bring Him out once a year for a couple of weeks.

  • http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/ Mackman

    Thank you, George! I really appreciate that.I agree with you about Talladega Nights: Baby Jesus is a lot less imposing than the Jesus who asks us to take up our cross and follow him.

    And while you’re right that it’s not just a “white thing,” I feel that since it was the dominant culture in the west for so long, we have to be especially wary of it, because it’s much more likely to unconsciously shape our thinking (as happened to poor Megyn).

  • ChibiViolet

    You’ve done a great job of explaining the importance of accuracy regarding Jesus Christ’s distinct background. But I’d just like to point out a little personal exception to the principle: I find it absolutely adorable to see ancient, foreign illustrations where the artist legitimately had no idea what a Jew looked like, so they had to work with the idea of “became human as we are” and portray what they thought an average person looked like. I can’t give medieval European artists the same pass, since they had Jewish people in their midst all along. But the innocent version, I think, is sweet, because it’s a reminder that He ultimately came here for all of us.

  • http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/ Mackman

    I’d never thought of it like that, Chibi, but I’d probably agree with you. Such a work is born out of ignorance, yes, but it is the ignorance of someone wishing to pay homage and doing so in the only way they know how….it is not the willful ignorance of Kelly and other American Christians, who know the truth and disregard it.

  • shankillwitness

    Preoccupation with the ethnicity, skin colour etc of the man Jesus is entirely irrelevant to Christ’s mission and purpose. It does however reflect the extent to which racism infects the perceptions of some people who presume to call themselves Christian. Raising Megyn Kelly as a point of view on this or anything requiring insight beyond the superficial pretty much sums up the redundancy of the question.

  • http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/ Mackman

    I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. Could you elaborate on what you mean? Because if you’re saying that Jesus’ race as a Jew is unimportant, than I’d have to disagree (but you might not be saying that).