Critical Christmas Theory?
A critique of a Fox News Opinion Piece
I was thumbing through the news the other day and came across this opinion piece on Fox News on December 17, 2023, entitled: “At Christmas, let's remember that many images of Jesus don't reflect His likely appearance” by John A. Murray, president of Imago Dei Leadership Forum (IDLF). He styles himself as a “thought-leader in regard to equipping children and parents to impact modern culture for Jesus Christ.” Before I get into my critique of aspects of his opinion piece, I want to share more about the IDLF because it is important to understand where a writer is coming from, when possible.
The mission of the IDLF is:
The mission of the Imago Dei Leadership Forum (IDLF) is to glorify God by equipping schools in the essential areas of faith, virtue and knowledge, as we share the Gospel of Jesus and encourage our students to view themselves and others as image-bearers of God.
The vision of the IDLF is:
The vision of IDLF is to do God’s work with excellence, while reflecting 1) Jesus’ vision of unity among believers and the amazing witness it bears to the world (John 17:21), and 2) the beautiful diversity of his people described in Jesus’ vision of heaven revealed to the Apostle John in Revelation 7:9—”a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.”
Mr. Murray has been working for over two decades on this endeavor in helping form youth to be the image-bearer of God, rather than be “re-created by the image-makers of our time–covering such areas as identity, body image, race, media discernment, history, and the Christian faith to name a few.” (IDLF)
Okay. Now to the article on Fox News. Murray begins by bringing up a new law in California that requires K-12 schools to incorporate media literacy standards in order to combat “fake-news.” Murray takes up this standard with a call to Christian educators to “consider the same ‘moral obligations’ in teaching biblical thinking skills to confront the ‘fake theology’ prevalent in the imagery found in so many of our schools.” (Fox News)
It was here that I began to have a red flag start raising in my head, but I held it down and kept reading. Then, he said: “Take, for example, our celebration of Christmas.” I immediately thought: okay; this will either be some sort of Protestant critique from a reformed perspective or just pure activism in the vein of critical race theory.
He then recounted a story in a multi-racial school where his “colleagues of color” revealed his blind spot to how “erroneous” his Christmas decorations were. He said, “Preparing to decorate my office with traditional Christian ornaments, I noticed for the first time how my manger scene was not biblically accurate — from Joseph and Mary to the Angel Gabriel, to most importantly, the baby Jesus.” Before any further comments, I am exceptionally unsure how he can say we have a “biblically accurate” version of the Angel Gabriel.
Anyway, he says that he admitted his blind spot to his “colleagues of color” and mentioned that he had been teaching a class for years that spoke to these “unbiblical images.” At this point, Mr. Murray anticipated his readers in saying, “And for those who may consider this a woke exercise in critical Christmas theory — it was not.”
Methinks the man doth protest too much. It seems like critical Christmas theory (hilarious turn of phrase on his part). But we will suspend judgment.
Murray said that he realized that his “White Christmas” was not biblical at all. The images that he had grown up with were not Middle Eastern Jews. He continues, “As our nation grows more culturally and racially diverse, it is important for Christian teens today to understand the impact false images can have on their beliefs and their generation.”
Here we see Mr. Murray’s perspective coming into focus. He is concerned with the impact that images have on Christian teens. And fair enough!
Then, he invokes Calvin: “Reformer John Calvin recognized the gravity of this error in his day too: ‘A true image of God [the Father] is not to be found in all the world; and hence … His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in a visible form.’”
Turning aside from the reformed tradition, he responds to the quote saying, “While that makes sense for God, the Father, what about the image of God’s Son — ‘the image of the invisible God’ who we celebrate coming into the world at Christmas?” I had a similar response in my mind reading the quote by Calvin. Calvin was well known for removing all sacred art from his churches and rejecting music, art, and anything mildly iconographic in his services.
Murray admits that the Gospel writers do not describe Jesus’ physical appearance, but then continues to harp against these “unbiblical images of Jesus.” So, which is it? Do we have descriptions that are not being met or should we just assume that Jesus is a Middle Eastern Jew and should, thus, fit such a description at all times in art?
Murray then brings up a scene from the Disney film “Ruby Bridges” which had a profound effect on him. The real story of Ruby Bridges, the 6 year old girl who attended an all-white school during reintegration and endured horrific racism and threats. The gist of the scene is that the family had a picture of Sallman’s “Head of Christ” on the wall which led the father to say, “She’s got it in her head that White folks are better than colored."
Murray writes:
“Thankfully, with the help of her parents, Ruby is given a biblical view of Jesus. Her deep faith in Jesus sustains her and allows her to persevere through the horrible treatment she receives from her community — praying for her verbal attackers every day and echoing Jesus’ prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
The real story of Ruby Bridges is tremendously inspirational. She and her parents are heroes. They deserve respect and admiration. So, I in no way want to imply the opposite. However, my critique again rests on this: what is a “biblical view of Jesus?”
Murray ends his opinion piece in this way:
“As I seek God’s forgiveness for the times I have not represented His image or that of His Son through my actions, I am reminded of the powerful charge St. Paul gave to the Church of Corinth: ‘And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.’
For the power of Jesus transforms us, bringing forgiveness of sin and restoring us back to His original intent of reflecting His image. A much-needed message this Christmas season.”
I quoted the entire ending paragraphs because they illustrate the issue with these sorts of processes of thought. I am unconvinced of Murray’s piece for multiple reasons. First, what does a “biblical view” actually entail as it concerns Jesus? Second, when we say “image” are we referring to the Imago Dei or to what Jesus actually looked like? And third, how do the final two paragraphs link with the rest of the opinion piece?
To the biblical view, I will say that it is obvious that the Holy Family were Middle Eastern Jews and would have a much darker complexion than they are normally portrayed in American and European art. But this is less about a “biblical view” and more about an “historical view.” However, this is an issue only insofar as what Murray brings up. For young black children, having an image of Jesus who is clearly whitewashed is problematic for human reasons. Jesus wants to be in union and communion with us, and given the racial tension in the past and present of the United States, then an image of a white, European Jesus could be a barrier to affinity with our Lord. So, having a darker Jesus would be warranted for purely evangelistic reasons.
But who says that images of our Lord or the Virgin Mary have to be historically accurate? In fact, it seems that God has given us the answer. In the East, the process of “writing” an icon is deeply prayerful and led by the Spirit. These icons often take on the character of the culture producing it. In the times that our Blessed Mother has appeared in the past centuries, she has changed her appearance to match the racial or ethnic realities of the person to whom she is appearing. Our Lady of Akita looks Japanese. Our Lady of Guadalupe looks mestizo. Our Lady of Lourdes looks French. It does not seem to matter to Mother Mary to appear as a Middle Eastern Jew all the time. Perhaps this points to the universality of humanity, as humanity. Perhaps racial features will be far less important on the other side of the veil.
And to the final two paragraphs of Murray’s quoted above, we should absolutely repent anytime that we fall short of God’s glory. The power of Jesus transforms us and forgives our sins. But what does this have to do with having historically accurate images of baby Jesus in a nativity scene? Why do we have to repent from having European images of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. It seems to me that European Christians through the ages have created sacred art that reflected their own ethical, racial, and cultural circumstances. I do not think this was to make Christ in our image, but rather to show the effects of His Incarnation, being made tangible in every cultural context.
Murray’s view seems to misunderstand “image.” When I hear Imago Dei, I think of the capacity to reflect God’s presence to the world. I think of the spiritual powers of intellect and will. I think of love, communion, and union. What I do not think of is racial appearance. Is this because I am white and ancestrally European? No. When I see an Eastern image of an olive-skinned Christ, I see my Lord and savior. When I go to an African priest for the Sacrament of Penance, I see a priest of God who has been given authority in Holy Orders.
For Catholics, this notion of racial representation is entirely dependent on location. It is one of the beautiful parts of being in a worldwide Church. In fact, Murray’s concern seems to be mostly an American problem - and not every part of America. Here in Phoenix, for example, we have a lot of African priests who regularly offer the Holy Mass. These tremendous men are acting in persona Christi capitis and the only racism I have heard is from those over the age of 70. The vast majority of people do not care if the priest is black, white, filipino, or from any continent or country. They are grateful to see a priest of God, acting in the Person of Christ.
That being said, there are some parts of the country where racism is alive and well. Where I grew up in rural North Carolina had real racism. It was disgusting to see. And it seemed like the younger generations were less inclined than previous generations towards it, thanks be to God. Racism is a scourge and unjust racial discrimination is intrinsically evil. We need to pray and work to end it, in every form!
However, if a black gospel church in the south of the United States wanted to have a picture of Jesus who looked more sub-saharan African than Middle Eastern, would this be “unbiblical” in Murray’s view? My impression is that he implies that only white images would be “unbiblical.”
It seems that the charge of “critical Christmas theory” stands. I cannot help but add a mild accusation of virtue signaling as well. What is the point of Murray’s article? To atone for his racial insensitivity in the past because of his Christmas decorations? I am really unsure because the last two paragraphs seem to have no connection to the rest of the piece, and there is no real direction as to how to remedy the issue.
Good distinctions are the spice of life. And critical Christmas theory has no flavor at all.