Our Images of Jesus
My husband has been reading the book, “The Church Enslaved: A Spirituality of Racial Reconciliation” by Michael Battle and Tony Campolo. Some of the short quotes/selections he has shared with me from the book address a couple issues we have been tossing around in the last year about culture and worship. What is amazing is how God decides to drive home points, as the two of us have often found that when we have been struggling with a certain issue, a book, article, sermon or conversation clutches right at the heart of the issue and affirms our struggle.We had another one of those experiences this evening. Just the other night my husband shared with me the following quote from the book:
“Quakers and Mennonites have long understood that all portrayals of Jesus end up as idolized images of people’s perceptions of themselves. Their houses of worship historically were devoid of any paintings of Christ because they knew that the Christian God transcends the gods of the culture.”
Amazingly, upon opening his newest issue of “The Mennonite,” my husband found the exact same quote on the first page in the article, “Racism is anti-Christian,” by Karl McKinney.
Perhaps I am more sensitive to portrayals of a white Jesus than most since I spent seven years trying to convince Cambodian Christians that Jesus was not American, but most likely looked more like them, Asian/Middle Eastern. And though, I confess, that, as a child, I found comfort in my little picture of a gentle-Jesus in a glow-in-the-dark frame, I have grown to really struggle with the idea we have created Jesus in our own image rather than rest in the fact that we are created in God’s image. I believe God’s image transcends culture and skin color. I hate the idea that our graven images perpetuate any kind of racial oppression or cultural exclusion. Yet, if I return to my mono- vs. multicultural argument I could argue that since God transcends cultures, can’t each culture/race can adopt its own image of Jesus???? I’m not sure I really feel comfortable with that argument. I wonder what others think about pictures of Jesus in our sanctuaries of worship.
posted by Gecko Girl at
8:05 PM
4 Comments:
Hi Dawn,
I appreciate your questions. I think human tendency is to create an "image" of God that validates their own identity.
I wonder how several things factor into your comments. Jesus was a Jewish male. I assume his physical characteristics would have been typical of others of Middle Eastern descent. In this sense he would not look like me, a caucasian male. Nor would he look like an African. Nor would he look like an Asian. This does not diminish the extent to which he identified with humans of every race by taking on our humanity. So to represent the historical Jesus who was born in a particular time and place with real flesh and blood--dna, hair color, eye color and skin color...is it wrong for the images (icons, paintings, whatever medium of art)to suggest the particularity of the incarnation?
Jesus is also the Word made flesh, he incarnates and reveals God to us. In that sense there is a reality to the incarnation that transcends that which is apparent to the eye. Truth is revealed. Truth about God and truth about the human story. So is it okay to reflect the humanity of Jesus in ways that transcend the historical particularity? I think so. So it is appropriate to show Jesus taking on the racial characteristics of every tribe and people group. He comes to us as one of us.
Icons are representations of theology. So there is a whole layer of meaning that is accessible when one knows this layer of meaning. The theological truth they represent is consistent with the Gospel.
I have also seen contemporary representations of Biblical images as seen through a multicultural lens. This too communicates in a way that is true to the Gospel.
All of this to say that I believe we need to guard against diluting the incarnation. Jesus did take on flesh. He was not a chameleon. He did enter into human history within a particular place and culture.
By
Brian Miller, at 2:10 PM, April 20, 2006
Thank you for making a clear case for the human desire to validate our own identity by depicting Jesus based on our “tribe and people group.” As I mentioned, I can lean toward that argument, but I suppose if I take that side of the argument, I would rather remain a bit more consistent with your point about “the particularity of the incarnation.” Perhaps that has been my biggest hang-up on the whole issue. Certainly I want to celebrate the incarnation, but by doing so, remain true to the historical and racial particularities.
So my questions remain and I will take this opportunity to expand the explanation of my quandary. I confess, much of it relates to power. I am not a theologian, so I will not take issue with your claims that icons reveal theology, for that is beyond me. But I wonder if our particular time and place in history warrants our critique of our own cultural portrayal of the Gospel.
Why can’t we paint a picture of Jesus as a Middle Easterner with children of all races surrounding him? Is it because we can’t “see” people of other races coming to Jesus? Is it because we love our race so much and feel most comfortable with that color? Is it because of a subconscious notion that God loves our race the most? Is it because of ignorance, that we do not realize . . . or maybe are too lazy to think about . . . the power associated with such white color? If it is because we do not realize power issues surrounding our skin color, then God enlighten us! If it is laziness, then God forgive us!
Ok, so my blonde haired, blue-eyed Jesus is just my cultural interpretation of my Christ who loves people like me. That makes me feel comfy (even though I am neither blonde nor blue-eyed). So what about my African-American brothers and sisters I would love to invite to church. What will they say? “Oh – this is a white church because their Jesus is white?” What will my Syrian or Pakistani friends say? “These people think Jesus was American, the “saviors” of the world? My part of the world had nothing to do with it?” My Cambodian brothers and sisters see Christianity exported from North America in pictures, literature and music. Do we realize the incredible POWER “our” gospel has had over much of the far East?
Unfortunately, just by virtue of the fact that we are white and the dominating leaders of the “free world,” I believe we have a greater responsibility to critique the use of art that has been passed down through the ages. I firmly do not believe that artwork is a part of liturgy that we unquestionably adopt because it is ancient or famous. It is purely cultural and I think should be used with discretion within our worship. At the same time, I am all for giving honor to culture where honor is due. If we want to take the argument that depicting the incarnation is our way of celebrating the humanity of God, then let’s do it with integrity based on the historical and racial particularities rather than perpetuate the world-wide concept that the white race comes with more honor, more beauty, and more power. For we, the white race, are NOT the incarnated Savior of the world.
By
Gecko Girl, at 4:04 PM, April 20, 2006
I’m uncomfortable with having images of Jesus in the sanctuary. I think we call attention to the God-incarnate nature of Jesus by promoting the life and teachings of Jesus. To presume specific particularities of the incarnation – such as hair color, eye color and skin color – on Jesus, conveys potentially harmful and unhealthy messages. What does it mean for us to create an “image” of God that validates our own identity? What message do we portray to our sisters and brothers of color when white congregations hang white images of Jesus on there walls? We need to be cognizant of our history in the US. Racism has been called our “original sin” and for years Christians have used images of a white Jesus to perpetuate racism.
Although I'm skeptical of the value of displaying images of Jesus, I think I would be more able to accept images which depict a multi-cultural Jesus (such as the poster displayed on this blog). In the same way, I'm opposed to having an American flag in the sanctuary; I would be okay if a church displayed flags from all the nations of the world. To me, a multi-cultural Jesus and the flags from around the world point to a God who transcends culture, race and nation.
By
Anonymous, at 7:58 PM, April 20, 2006
I sit here trying to encapsulate my continuation of thoughts on the issue of icons and images of Jesus. I know I tend to react to things from more of a sociological approach first before considering the theological. And the truth is, I do understand that the iconic form of teaching has been used throughout the ages, not only within Christianity, but in order to educate the followers of most religions in the world, Buddhism notwithstanding. In many cases, it is only the artwork that remains, giving a window into what the ancient cultures believed spiritually.
But if I force myself to consider the "theological" basis for using images of Jesus in worship, I realize my mindblocks probably have just as much to do with my stubborness and fears as with my ignorance. I can't help but argue that with the age of Enlightenment and the turn of the tide in literacy, Christians began to read the Bible for themselves. We do not use the iconic tradition so much for education anymore in the West. It is purely a form of artwork in my mind. And there is where my mind stops. I am not opposed to artistic expressions of one's faith and reverance, yet my American upbringing and experience has tinted my lenses limiting my willingness and ability to explore it further at this point. I am not too much in dispair, however, because I know that my journey in life will likely lead me to revisit this place from a different vantage point at some point.
By
Gecko Girl, at 5:13 PM, April 22, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home