It does not take the most acute of observers to notice the “diversification” trend that has been taking hold in each and every industry over the past decade or so. Somewhere on their websites, most major corporations will now reassure consumers that they are proud to be employing large numbers of some minority ethnic or social group.
Much of this is due to the DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives pushed by the legacy media and many left-leaning politicians. While DEI and its unfair anti-meritocratic tenets are problems in themselves, they are in fact merely the political symptoms of a much more deeply-rooted social conviction.
There is a belief in the modern world that all minority groups – other than white males – simply cannot identify with media that does not represent them in exactly equal proportion with every other group. Apparently, any book, film, or art piece of any kind that shows one or more white men as its centre of focus is “not relatable” to any other group, and must be diversified if it is to attract a wider audience.
In this belief, once again is displayed the Left’s much-beloved soft bigotry of low expectations. Apparently the (mostly white) people running the political and cultural outlets on the Left cannot comprehend a black person relating to a story about another human who happens not to have the same skin tone. The Left seems to consider all other ethnic groups besides Caucasians so unimaginative and closed-minded that they could not relate to a person who looks unlike them; a person, for example, like Jesus Christ.
Jesus has become one of the more recent targets of the diversification trend. According to some, Jesus has traditionally been interpreted in a “white male” medium in books and film. Some even go further to add that the only reason Jesus came to earth as a man was that women were so persecuted at the time that He would not have been able to catch any attention as one. In other words, it is high time, per these critics, for a non-white female interpretation of Jesus. Enter Cynthia Erivo.
Known for her role as the wicked witch Elphaba in the hit movie musical “Wicked” (2024), Cynthia Erivo, for a time, became something of an internet joke for her ridiculous press tour interviews for the aforementioned movie, as well as her inexplicably vicious reaction to a harmless fan edit of the movie poster. It is worth pointing out too that she is a biological or “cisgender” woman. Nevertheless, Sergio Trujillo, the director of an upcoming performance set to be played in the Hollywood Bowl, considered her an appropriate casting for the titular part in “Jesus Christ Superstar”.
One has to wonder what could possibly have prompted a decision like this. The casting is utterly mystifying and, ultimately, simply makes absolutely no sense. Erivo is more or less the diametric opposite of how Jesus would actually have looked and sounded. Even considering it on a purely theatrical level, Jesus in this play has traditionally been portrayed by a male tenor. The mere fact that Erivo’s voice is tonally different from and probably above the range that was meant for the role should set the entire production off kilter.
Seemingly, the reasoning behind the choice is more or less as follows: “All biblical productions have traditionally been comprised of mostly white men; in order to achieve proper representation, therefore, we must counter this with the exact opposite casting” (regardless of how ridiculous it will appear).
Many complain that the Bible, or particularly spiritual film, is aimed only at white people. All those who argue thus should note that, in fact, the only truly white people in the Bible were the Romans, who it is safe to say were not portrayed in the most flattering light. Actually, Jesus and most of the other people in the Bible were of middle-eastern descent. Nevertheless, this did not cause white people to whine about not being represented in the Bible. Likewise did it not give any other ethnicity cause for complaint. African converts did not seem to complain to missionaries that Jesus did not look exactly like them. Nor did the Europeans moan over the fact that Jesus was not born on their continent. This was because Jesus was always a universal ideal – the quintessentially perfect man.
Jesus never needed to look like everyone to minister to everyone. It is worth recalling Matthew 28:19 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations”. Jesus intended to reach all people from all backgrounds. He had relatable characteristics. He preached a gospel of love towards neighbours. He did not want only to save males, or white people, or Jews; Jesus had always intended that all come to Him. And for the past two thousand years, it was not necessary for Him to be diversified in order for the majority of the western world to subscribe to His teaching.
This is not to say, of course, that there was no art made depicting Jesus or the Holy Family differently to how they may have looked. There are plenty of illustrations and statues of Our Lady of Africa with the infant Jesus in her arms, in which both are seen as black. These illustrations were not done for the sake of “diversity”; they were done because the artists had likely seen very few white people, and probably no middle-easterners in their lives, so they drew Mary and Jesus as was reasonable to them. This does not at all take away the beauty of their art, moreover. The difference is simply that those artists did not have complete knowledge of the wider world and ethnicities; today we are fully aware of them, and therefore to depict Jesus in a way contrary to reason simply for the sake of appeasing liberal white guilt is not beautiful, but blasphemous.
This play, however, is not the only production founded upon this kind of idea. It was announced some time ago that Netflix, the studio responsible for such media crimes as “Queen Cleopatra” (2023), would be producing, in collaboration with director Greta Gerwig, a new version of C.S. Lewis’ iconic The Chronicles of Narnia, starting with the first book chronologically in the series, The Magician’s Nephew. It is no surprise that Gerwig, who has directed various other pictures with clear feminist undertones, appears to be considering for her upcoming adaptation Meryl Streep in the part of the male Christ-like figure of Aslan the lion. While no official casting for the part has been announced yet, many sources report that Streep is seemingly “in talks” for it.
Nevertheless, to recast Aslan as female is more or less equal to the choice of Erivo as Jesus. Aslan is an extremely clear metaphor for Christ: a character who dies as a sacrifice for all and miraculously rises again. Lewis himself confirmed that Aslan was intended as the figure of the Son of God. And yet some claim that Lewis would actually approve of such a casting.
The truth is that Jesus did not merely come as a man for the sake of convenience. Had He really wanted to appear as a woman, He could have done any number of things to make it possible – He is God after all. Nevertheless, Christ came as a man because that is His spiritual nature. Christ is the Son in the Blessed Trinity, not the daughter, nor the androgynous child. As stated in Matthew 3:17, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”. Likewise, Christ made specific reference to His Father many times throughout the Gospels. God, as a spirit, does not have a physical sex like man; that being said, from the beginning of Genesis He was identified as male, and not a single biblical text afterwards called Him anything else. Man was made in his role on earth to have certain characteristics, all of which were based on the inherently male nature of God Himself, and distinct from those characteristics which God instilled in woman. It is not so much then that Jesus became a man in order to be like all men; rather, all men were made to be like Him.
The Catholic Church is named so for a reason. “Catholic” was not a word invented specifically for the Church – it means quite literally “universal”. This was Christ’s intention for His Church, and Himself. He came down to earth as man in order to deliver a universal message to all peoples, regardless of superficial aspects. This was Christ’s wish. Let no man attempt to put it asunder.
Patrick Vincent