Personally, I do not think the gospel addresses itself to the issue of ethnicity, race or color except to

announce that through the cross, He abolished the differences that separated us and made us one man
(Ephesians 2:11-19). The gospel therefore has no obligation to affirm things that highlight our differences.

World over, the sense of color, race or ethnicity have tended to create division, promote race superiority
and pride and many other evils rather than promote good, unity and brotherhood.

The two main objectives of the gospel are to bring the grace of salvation through faith to those who would
believe in Christ Jesus, and to cause us to press toward the goal of winning the prize for which God has
called us heavenward in Christ Jesus. By this very objective it cannot address itself to issues of ethnicity,
race or color.

I accept that I am a Meru, a Kenyan, an African and black; but they make no difference in Christ or in light
of the gospel.

Almost all cultures are underpinned by religious beliefs. Most societies, if not all, sustain their culture
through religious beliefs and practices which include rituals. They have an intricate system of practices
and traditions that, at the base, define a community's spirituality. Do we need to start sorting out of a
particular culture what can be redeemed and included in the gospel? Isn't the gospel sufficient in working
out God's purpose in man?

I see no value in culture to anyone except the potential to engender pride and nationalistic feelings which
could lead to profiling. I would not consider the gospel as an addition to my culture. In my opinion this
would be tantamount to reducing the work of the cross to the level of the customs, traditions and beliefs of
man. The cross must stand alone as the wisdom of God and not at the same level with the wisdom of
man.

Biblical Christianity is not western culture. The fact that it was brought by the white man does not
associate it with the culture of the white man. If there is any adulteration, it may be in the practice but not
in the written word of the bible. In which case we shouldn't observe practices that are not found in the
bible.

As to His human descent, Jesus Christ was an Israelite. To depict Him in a different color, ostensibly to
reflect Him as African or any other race would be to deny the truth of scripture and create a wrong
impression in the minds of children. If I was to explain the crucifixion using a black Jesus to a Sunday
School class comprising many races, wouldn't this alienate children who are not black and highlight their
differences? I believe I would not be advancing the gospel in this manner.

But do we even need to illustrate Him using pictures?

In the Ten Commandments the Lord commanded that: ‘You shall not make an image in the form of
anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below’ (Exodus 20:4). Even in the
elaborate designs of the Tabernacle or the Ark of the Covenant or the articles that were commanded to
be made none represented the image of God. We know that in his appearance as a man, Christ had
nothing to attract us to Him. The soldiers who were sent to arrest Him had to agree with Judas how they
were to identify Him; which was for Judas to kiss Him. It seems to me there is a clear intent in the
scriptures to avoid casting God in any form so as to leave worshipers to worship ‘in Spirit and in Truth’,
not beholden to an image. Therefore, it may be that we do not need to debate whether or not to represent
Christ in any racial color because, in the first place, we may be in error by drawing His image. It may be
okay however to illustrate how the cross was used in the crucifixion of Christ by drawing a man hanging
on the cross, but not to imply that the image is Christ.