|
|
|
Seldom has there
been more controversy and cautious anticipation preceding the
release of a motion picture than that which has been swirling
around the film, The Passion of the Christ. The uproar
concerns its alleged depiction of the Jews of that time as
being principally responsible for sentencing Jesus to His
tortuous death and the extent to which that interpretation
may or may
not coincide with Gospel accounts. There is also some degree
of unease with what has been described as the unsparingly
graphic brutality of Jesus’ crucifixion. Still, millions of Christians,
particularly evangelicals and fundamentalists, eagerly awaited
the movie’s Ash Wednesday release and view its production as
a sign that Hollywood, long regarded as dismissive of or hostile
to Christianity, no longer ignores them. The problem I have
with this film, and the very reason that I will not see it,
is its casting. This film is just the latest example of the
one thing – with regard to virtually all dramatizations, representations
and depictions of Jesus – that is almost never questioned:
that is, that Jesus was white.
‘Stayed’ on Jesus
Many black people become highly agitated and offended when
confronted with the issue of how and why Jesus is nearly always
depicted and portrayed as a blond-haired, blue-eyed white man.
Even when confronted with evidence that the people of the Holy
Land at that time almost certainly didn‘t look like that, Black
ministers will sometimes harshly admonish their congregants
for even entertaining such thoughts. Many black clergymen (and
women), most of whom of course have a picture of this Caucasian
Messiah hanging behind their pulpits, have even been known
to respond to the issue with a reminder that despite what Mary
and Joseph may have looked like, Jesus was, after all, God’s
son; seemingly oblivious to the inference this makes. True
believers, they say, should cultivate a spiritual relationship
with Jesus and be endlessly grateful that He came to deliver
and redeem us from sin, to be our comforter through the storms
of life and to intercede on our behalf to God and not concern
themselves with a matter as trivial as what Jesus looked like.
To follow this pious decree, however, is to turn a blind eye
to the calculated distortion of Christian religious imagery,
which began in Europe during the Renaissance, as one of the
most effective and enduring tools of white supremacy. This
is the principal basis upon which Christianity was introduced
to Africans in this country. As the African-American theologian
James Cone has noted:
"In the old slavery days, the Church preached that slavery
was a divine decree, and it used the Bible as the basis
of its authority. Not only did Christianity fail to offer
the ... [Black] hope of freedom in the world, but the manner
in which Christianity was communicated to him tended to
degrade him. The ... [Black] was taught that his enslavement
was due to the fact that he had been cursed by God. ...
Parts of the Bible were carefully selected to prove that
God had intended that the...[Black] should be the servant
of the white man...."
While from a spiritual standpoint it is vital to keep in mind
Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness, it is also willfully
naďve to accept that the persistent Euro-centric representations
of Him are mere coincidence.
A Belief Held Passionately
The fact is that white people desperately want to believe
that Jesus was white. Why? Because it is sine qua non (‘without
which it is not’) to the political and social doctrine of
white supremacy, the belief that whites are innately superior
to and possess the right of hegemony over dark-skinned people.
Without the belief that God and therefore Jesus were (are)
white, they cannot lay claim to having been made in His image
and thereby justify the racial hierarchy that they have created
upon which they claim the top spot.
In an article titled "Children
of a White God: A Study of Racist ‘Christian’ Theologies," religious
scholar Matthew Ogilvie details how several racist Christian groups and sects
rationalize their beliefs and explains their close theological ties to more
mainstream Christian fundamentalism. The one common tenet among them all,
be they white separatists, supremacists, nationalists or anti-Semites, who
deny that Jesus was even a Jew, is that both God and Jesus are white, despite
there being no scriptural basis for this belief. The perception that Jesus
is white has given whites the preening arrogance with which they have enslaved,
oppressed and subjugated blacks and other non-whites not merely with impunity
but with, as they choose to see it, blessings from above. Segregation, Jim
Crow and particularly laws against racial inter-marriage were based upon
whites’ belief that separation of the races was ordained by God; the slave-holding
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney referenced his conclusion in the
Dred Scott case, summarized by the assertion “that the black man has no right
that the white man is bound to respect,” with the rationale that this was
in accordance with God’s principles; without the belief that God is white,
this country could not sustain a system of capital punishment that is designed
to execute mostly poor non-whites who kill whites; ministers of the Gospel
could not possibly have led white lynch mobs in prayer after a hanging; nor
could the cross-burning Christian terrorist group the Ku Klux Klan have sustained
itself for more than a century without a perverted theology that affirmed
violence, hatred, intimidation and racial conflict to be in accordance with
the perfect will of God.
What Did Jesus Look Like?
Do we have any way of knowing what “color” Jesus actually
was? The Bible contains no specific physical descriptions
of Jesus. There are some compelling pieces of evidence, though
admittedly indirect, that indicate Jesus almost certainly
was a person of color. According to the African-American
biblical scholar Cain Hope Felder, we should view the Middle
East of Jesus' day as a kind of eastern extension of Africa.
According to available archaeological and linguistic evidence,
the interaction of peoples between those regions can readily
be established. We know that the entire Jewish nation, including
all members of Jesus’ genealogical lineage, lived in Egypt
for many years before Moses led them out. Jesus Himself is
known to have lived in Egypt for a time when his earthly
father Joseph was visited by an angel and told to flee there
with the Christ child from Herod the king, who intended to
kill Him. (Matt. 2: 13) (Why would they have been sent to
hide in a place where they couldn’t have blended in with
the local population?) God Himself heralds His return with
the words, “Out of Egypt did I call my son.” (Matt. 2: 15)
Throughout Europe there remain a number of places of worship
which feature paintings, statues and frescoes of a dark-skinned
Jesus and His mother Mary
such as the cathedral of Moulins in France, the Church of Annunciata, the
Church of St. Stephen at Genoa, the St. Francisco at Pisa, the Church of
St. Theodore at Munich, etc. While not conclusive, these facts offer at least
as much proof that Jesus was a man of color as any that may support his having
been a fair-skinned, flaxen haired Caucasian, but you’d never know it. Ironically,
the only person I’ve heard discuss the issue of the film’s casting of a white
actor portraying Jesus is NBC‘s "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno. To
paraphrase, Leno insisted that only a black man could have been arrested,
tried, convicted, sentenced to death and executed within twelve hours!
Limited Verisimilitude
One of the main selling points of the "The Passion of
the Christ" is its unprecedented realism, the most prominent
example being its dialogue consisting only of the Aramaic,
Latin and Hebrew languages spoken during biblical times.
But if the film’s producer Mel Gibson was aiming for such
a high degree of cinematic verite, why didn’t he use actors
who looked like the people of that time? Of course that is
a rhetorical question that we all know the answer to; Jesus
was white, end of discussion. Mel Gibson has used his claims
of difficulty in getting this picture made to add a crusade-like
aura to its release, which coming from an A-List Hollywood
superstar such as he I find very hard to believe. Difficulty
of an insurmountable nature would certainly have arisen had
he attempted to film a movie about Jesus casting Omar Epps
and Alfre Woodard as Mary, and we know why.
Passion Seen and Unseen
It’s probably no coincidence that a network television news
report the night before the nation-wide release of the film
featured comments by several African-Americans as they exited
a movie theater after seeing the film. One gentleman had
spent thousands of dollars of his own money to screen the
film in advance of its release; one lady was shown kneeling
on the ground outside of the theater crying "Thank you,
Jesus! Thank you, Lord!" There is no doubt that many
people will be awed, moved and touched by seeing The Passion
of The Christ. But all should bear in mind that the fact
that the subject of the film is divine does not in any way
confer divinity upon the film itself. And whether or not
we choose to acknowledge it, this movie reflects two deeply
held “Passions”: the one that unfolds on the screen and the
deviously scheming one that lurks beneath it.
Miles Willis is a free-lance writer living in the Washington,
DC metro area.
|
|
|
|
|
|