A question about inaccurate depictions of Jesus...
Hello all! A question for progressive/liberal Christians regarding depictions of Christ. It goes without saying that we don't know what Jesus looked like, historically. There is no description of him in Gospels, and the few that do exist in other places are not thought to be literally descriptive in nature.
Our modern stereotypical version of Christ likely didn't finalize properly until the 3rd or 4th Century AD/CE, i.e. with long hair and a beard.
All that aside, there is a particular focus that I want to bring up for discussion: the depiction of Jesus's ethnicity. I have seen a great deal of emphasis in progressive Christian spaces on not depicted Jesus as white. And let me clear, it is obvious what while we don't know what Jesus looked like, we know he was definitely not white. As a 1st century Galilean Jew, he likely would have had dark hair, brown/olive skin, similar (though not exactly like) modern peoples around the region.
However, I think we sometimes lose a vital piece of theological history when we treat any specific cultural depiction as a "forbidden" image. If we look across the globe, we see a beautiful, recurring pattern: inculturation. For centuries, diverse cultures have re-imagined Christ in their own likeness: not per-say out of cultural ignorance, but as a very real expression of the concept of Immanuel, "God with Us"
Be it Ethiopian icons where Christ is depicted with dark/obsidian skin, Chinese silk paintings depicting Christ in the style of a Han aristocrat, or Baroque art from Latin America where Christ is depicted as Mestizo, or even modern depictions of Christ as from literally every place possible, which of course includes distinctly European depictions of Jesus.
So the discussion I want to pose is thus: If we celebrate that a Congolese Jesus, Sioux Jesus, Japanese Jesus, or an Arab Jesus are all beautiful expressions of cultures which see the divine in themselves, should we apply a different standard to European depictions? It is undeniable that the "White Jesus" archetype has been weaponized as a tool of colonialism and used to bolster white supremacy. That history is heavy and must be acknowledged and confronted.
But I worry, that in this good desire to move away from an ethnocentrist tendency within Christianity, we risk suggesting that European-descended Christians are the only group who shouldn't see their likeness reflected in the humanity of Christ. Can't French, Hungarian, Finnish, and English depictions of Christ be a few seats at a large table?
Certainly, I think the notion of "white" Jesus as the default is moronic and should be fought against, and I'm very glad that progressive Christians do so. I'm also open to hearing disagreements with me, and know that I come at this in good faith. If you think I'm wrong, I want to hear why, and I am opening to change my mind. Have a wonderful day all!