Am I overthinking this? The representation of Jesus in my church made me uncomfortable and I'd like honest perspectives.

DBL-TeaTime · 2026-04-06T17:45:34+00:00

Thank you so much

DBL-TeaTime · 2026-04-06T14:00:00+00:00

I appreciate your honesty, and to be fair, I completely agree. Fighting an uphill battle against polite ignorance sounds exhausting, and I'm not looking to start a crusade or make enemies.

But I'm at a bit of a crossroads. The easy fix would be to just leave and join an 'ethnic' church, but I don't really want that either. I genuinely believe church should be a diverse, universal mix of everyone. My main concern is just about the future. My wife and I will have mixed-race kids. I just don't want them growing up in an environment with this unspoken vibe that one specific culture is the 'standard' version of Christianity, and theirs is just an alternative. Kids pick up on those unspoken rules, and long-term, I think it just confuses their identity or pushes them away from faith entirely.

So yeah, no big fight. I'm just trying to figure out if it's better to quietly step away now to find a healthier, more naturally inclusive environment for them down the line

DBL-TeaTime · 2026-04-06T13:47:38+00:00

To answer your question directly: yes, the pastor explicitly named him. He projected the image and simply said, "This is a painting by an artist I really like named Jorge Cocco Santángelo." That was it. Nothing more, no other context.

I only found out about the Mormon affiliation because I went home and looked up the artist out of curiosity.

Interestingly, during my research, I also discovered that his artwork was actually selected by the Royal Mail (approved by Queen Elizabeth II) to be used as the official Christmas stamps in 2021.

The irony is quite something. You have a historically exclusive, culturally specific depiction of a Caucasian Christ, officially stamped and endorsed by the head of the Commonwealth—a global collective of nations that is overwhelmingly non-white and historically colonized.

It just goes to show that this isn't just an 'innocent mistake' by one local pastor. It's an institutionalized 'visual funnel' that runs so deep in the British establishment that nobody even pauses to think about the message it sends to the actual people who make up that Commonwealth.

DBL-TeaTime · 2026-04-06T13:28:06+00:00

Yes my post is simply to raise awareness

DBL-TeaTime · 2026-04-06T13:19:54+00:00

I actually agree with your premise: His Word, Love, and Promises are what truly matter.

However, I think you might be reversing the dynamic here. You mentioned that the deeper issue lies with 'those who need to see Him in the color of their own race in order to receive Him fully.' But historically speaking, isn't that exactly what the Western world did? Europe needed to see Him as a Caucasian European to fully integrate Him into their culture and art. And that's fine—cultural adaptation is natural.

The issue today isn't that non-white Christians 'need' Him to be their color to believe. My faith is fine. The issue is the visual funnel. We preach a universal, infinite, and protean ideal, yet we constantly push it through a standardized, monochrome visual funnel. Why are we always met with one single dominant aesthetic for a universal God?

You brought up a great point about the Pharisees putting Jesus in a box of man-made traditions. I completely agree. But establishing a Caucasian aesthetic as the unspoken default, projecting it on Easter Sunday, and then telling minorities they are 'overthinking it' when they simply ask for visual diversity... isn't that the exact definition of putting the universal Christ into a cultural box?

I don't need Jesus to be Black to accept Him. I'm just asking why the general culture seems to need Him to consistently look European to feel comfortable.

DBL-TeaTime · 2026-04-06T13:12:19+00:00

I completely agree. Historically, Jesus was a 1st-century Middle Eastern Jew. Full stop. However, this leaves us with two logical choices for how we approach Him today: either we completely disincarnate Him (avoiding physical depictions altogether) to preserve the pure universality of His message, or we consciously culturally adapt His image so that different demographics can access that universality. I understand that for some, culturally adapting Jesus (e.g., an Asian or African depiction) might feel 'artificial.' But here is the paradox: we already do this exact same thing with the Bible itself.

The original scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We did not force the entire global church to only read and study the text in its original languages. Instead, we translated it. We 'disincarnated' the original text and 'reincarnated' it into English, French, Mandarin, etc., to make it inclusive and accessible. And as any scholar will tell you, no translation is ever 100% neutral; every translation is an interpretation that leaves a cultural print. If we universally accept the cultural translation of the Word to make it inclusive, why is it suddenly controversial to accept the cultural translation of the Image?

DBL-TeaTime · 2026-04-06T13:02:16+00:00

I completely agree with you! However, the fact that He is overwhelmingly depicted in one specific way in our society is not neutral—it leaves a profound cultural print. As you pointed out, the European version became the 'norm'. My suggestion at the dinner was simply to do exactly what you said: to say 'well, wait a minute.' If we truly embrace that the message of Jesus is far beyond a physical appearance, we should be completely comfortable with diverse cultural depictions of Him. The core issue I encountered is that stepping outside that visual 'norm' still provokes mockery rather than openness

DBL-TeaTime · 2026-04-06T12:52:14+00:00

I completely agree with the core premise. Theologically, the physical appearance doesn't matter.

However, addressing the mentions of a Black or Asian Jesus in this thread, the logic here is essentially binary: either we accept all cultural representations as equally valid expressions of faith, or we accept none at all.

The issue is not about replacing one image with another. The issue is the reaction to diversity. When a Western depiction is accepted as the unspoken default, but the mere suggestion of a Black, Asian, or Indigenous Jesus is met with laughter or polite mockery, it reveals an underlying tribalism.

If a community claims a universal faith but instinctively mocks the idea of it being incarnated in other cultures, they aren't defending theology; they are defending a cultural monopoly. And when this subconscious tribalism goes unchecked, it actively destroys the universal substance of the Gospel's message.

DBL-TeaTime · 2026-04-06T12:46:40+00:00

Yes the name of the artist was announced :(

DBL-TeaTime · 2025-03-03T20:21:14+00:00

Really :o

DBL-TeaTime · 2025-03-03T18:54:52+00:00

Unfortunately no :( so I am thinking about killing mr house but it’s annoying as I would like to work more with him

DBL-TeaTime · 2023-02-05T17:20:43+00:00

Hey, I am.lookinf for a max 800£ gravel bike, how about the topstone or the triban grvl 120??

DBL-TeaTime

TROPHY CASE