Indigenous Icons: Has Anyone Ever Come Across Any and Why are more not done?

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom

Concerning what has been on my mind, I have been very much blessed of late with one of the ministries I've kept up with that does extensive focus on the many ways Indigenous cultures are often neglected in many Liturgical circles when it comes to the arts - especially as it concerns Icons. What stood out was the ways that others who are Aboriginals, for example, do not visualize Christ or many scenes in the scriptures in the same way that others in Greek or Byzantine culture did - and when expressing it in the manner they do, it truly does stand out.

​

In example, here's one of Christ the Good Shepherd from a Native American perspective:

​

Both are from Father Giuliani, who began a year-long study of Orthodox iconography with Russian icon master Vladislav Andreyev at the School of Sacred Art in Greenwich Village.

• Indigenous Jesus: The Jesus Question: Is giving Christ African features heretical, or at the very least neglectful?

• Indigenous Jesus: Aboriginal Christian Painting of the Trinity and the People of God

The first image is the Virgin Mary with Christ as a child - and the second is The Star of Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and the Magi portrayed in the Kwoma visual language'

And of course, the Virgin Mary again with Christ:

​

And this one is of Christ on the Cross as well as the Last Supper:

​

Although the one above is from an Aboriginal perspective, this one has Thai influences as well as Persian:

​

I personally believe that portraying things in a manner that fits the culture one is in will allow for iconography to have more of a widespread impact - as it seems in many cases that icons are limited to only the Byzantine style and that seems to be a hinderance to others being reached for Christ than others are willing to let on. As said elsewhere, one cannot make cultural norms based in the Church an idol when it comes to seeing how something was expressed in one era...and not being willing to change it at any point in order to help others see things more clearly if something arises. For just as others in the Byzantine era contexualized the Faith as they understood it in their times so as to be better able to make disciples/convey truth ....in the same manner Jewish believers from a Hellenized background used Greek concepts/imagery to convey Biblical principles to others in the Greek world so that they'd understand).... so it is the case, IMHO, that there should never be such a focus on the past that there's never ability to understand (or be able) to know when change may be necessary. IMHO, it's tragic when the church has taken the contextualization of one generation or one culture and declared that as normative for all time - or used it to condemn a new framing, a new contextualization. Personally...this is something that I must say has been my biggest concern with the "high" churches, especially Orthodoxy. I don't understand why the culture, art, hymnology, and symbols of 4th-century Byzantium are held in such high regard as to be considered in essence the peak of perfection, the summit of revelation...but anything differing from that, be it Assyrian or Oriential Orthodox and so forth, is treated with disdain or contempt.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Do you feel an Indigenous Iconography is something others should speak on more when it comes to expressing truth?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I've seen some in pictures, but have never seen any first hand. I think the reason is that I'm not indigenous.

However, we do have a nativity scene about 1/2 scale at our Chruch which is very (I would say too) white. The baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph have light hair, very white skin with rosy cheeks an blue eyes.

BTW, I have no problem with any of the icons that you posted.

 

[Cappadocious]

A lot of "native style icons" end up looking like kitschy t-shirt art, or some sort of noble savage reconstruction.

Your icon should not look like this:

Nothing is more removed from a culture than what is produced by its own people deliberately trying to exemplify it.

 

[GoingByzantine]

Icons are relativistic, as long as they do not become idols I don't think it matters what style they take.

Since one purpose of icons is teaching, it makes sense to portray the people in a way that the locals would understand.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Icons are relativistic, as long as they do not become idols I don't think it matters what style they take.

Since one purpose of icons is teaching, it makes sense to portray the people in a way that the locals would understand.

The way many local cultures portray them is rather amazing, IMHO - AND I agree with you that there is no need for worry as long as idolatry does not happen.

​

Some of the ways presentation already occurs is fascinating ..

​

As another wisely noted:

The concept of art in traditional Australian Aboriginal society is very different to the concept of art in European society. In traditional Aboriginal societies, activities like dancing, singing, body decorations, sand drawings, making implements or weaving baskets were not considered to be separate activities called art and design. All of these activities were a part of the Dreaming (or Dreamtime) and a part of normal daily life. There was no concept of a special type of person, artists, because, in a sense, everyone was an artist. This is changing as tradition-oriented communities adapt to aspects of western culture although the number of ‘artists’ in any Aboriginal group would generally be far greater than in non-Aboriginal communities (for more info see Aboriginal Art Culture and Tourism Australia).​

Here's one, for example, on The Last Journey of Christ' BY Kutjunga, Balgo (Aboriginal)

And for others - as it concerns the Cross being carried or the Seven Days of Creation

​

I do wish more presentations of Indigenous Art would occur...

Of course, one could also argue that Ethiopian Iconagraphy which we're more used to is also Indigenous - a testament to the fact that Christianity engages in the culture it finds itself and integrates those things that speak to the Christian faith while holding onto everything that it already had.

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I've seen some in pictures, but have never seen any first hand. I think the reason is that I'm not indigenous.

However, we do have a nativity scene about 1/2 scale at our Chruch which is very (I would say too) white. The baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph have light hair, very white skin with rosy cheeks an blue eyes.

BTW, I have no problem with any of the icons that you posted.

Cool to know - I don't know why the issue is so widespread when it comes to lack of awareness since there are many places talking on it are making the issue known.

I do suspect that a lot of it has to do with where people may not wish to really change the perception...as discussed elsewhere before:

Some of this was discussed more in-depth elsewhere - as seen in the following:

Inaugural World Christian Gathering of Indigenous People ( YouTube - Inaugural World Christian Gathering of Indigenous People )​

For other wonderful sources of information, I'd highly suggest for others to consider investigating the work of the Late Dr. Richard Twiss of Wiconi International (more here and here and #1/ #18 #111 #126 ) - as he was one of my biggest inspirations when it came to seeing the diversity present within the Body of Christ And he really broke it down when sharing on our cultural preferences, and our incompleteness without our neighbor.

• The Work of the People: Films: WOUNDED INDIAN

Drumming, Chanting and Other Christian Things​

CCDA National Conference 2011: Richard Twiss
Richard Twiss, Randy Woodley ​

From Somoa to Lakota Sioux to Berber to Aboriginal to Inuit/Eskimo to Hawaiian and the many groups in Asia and so many others......all doing what the Apostle Paul himself did when it came to contexualizing the Gospel (more shared earlier in #17/ #22 #94 ). Others may trip thinking it's not Christianity if it doesn't have an American/Western feel to it....but that's unnecessary, IMHO......

If some were to become world missionaries you would have a rough time because you couldn’t draw the line between culture and essentials.

And I hope - in regards to those who are non-Christians - that you'd be able to see the reality of how much diversity is truly present in Christianity from an Indigenious perspective

​

Culture is fundamentally important to Christianity in some ways. For example, under Ottoman rule, Greeks were not educated (schools were closed, etc.) and direct teaching of Christ was often impossible. Yet, because the culture had been transformed, the culture itself was essential in maintaining Christianity and became the teaching of Christ (through doing and outlook or mindset).

The problem is when attributes of a culture (the economic system, arts, etc.) are mistaken for Christianity, or have not been truly transformed in Him, or He has been lost from the center (the culture degrades away from its incarnational attributes), or a transformed culture is imposed on those missionized meaning their Christianity operates in a "foreign tongue".

The missionizing of the Philippines (Pres. Mickinley), the preference for Evangelical Protestant professing politicos in Central America regardless of their actions (80's), and the Indian Schools are examples where these aspects are to some extent wound together.

::: American Indians of the Pacific Northwest :::

There were also boarding schools for Aboriginal people and sadly they went through the same exact thing

Of course, others are at least willing to discuss the issue honestly. I'm reminded of Dr John Harris, author of One Blood, a landmark study into 200 years of Aboriginal encounter with Christianity.....for he sought to discuss the impact of European missionaries on Aboriginal Culture. Specifically, out of a burning conviction that “God made of one blood all nations”, Christians have carried their message to Aborigines throughout Australia....and John shares how, in the face of abuse, paternalism, prejudice, isoluation and crippling hardship, the Christian gospel was brought to Aboriginal people. Although sometimes blind to their own faults, those who brought this message were remarkable people of great compassion and courage....and yet their actions had severe consequences. Historically, Christianmissions were sometimes places of regimentation marked by a loss of freedom or places of survival and refuge for a suffering people. And although the missions may seem to have failed, from many of them emerged distinctive Aboriginal churches with strong Aboriginal leadership (more here and here or here)

And for others:

​

​

• Towards an Aboriginal theology – Graham Paulson | unlearning the problem

• Religion and Society: Towards an aboriginal Christian theology, are aboriginal spirituality and Christianity fundamentally incompatible? Shona Chandani

• Aboriginal Theology: God, Land and Eschatology | Faith for thought

• 
  Towards an Aboriginal Theology - Pacifica

• Faith and Theology: Doing theology on Aboriginal land

This one has always been something that stood out to me - a Japanese Christian Orthodox Icon (in the Nihonga style of the late 19th-early 20th century) - and it's one of my favorites as it concerns Japanese Madonnas

​

Moreover, there's this one I came across from one of my Orthodox friends - from Thailand. In the imagery, although the periphery displays the local Thai style, the Holy Theotokos is painted close to being a Jewish woman. Additionally, the Greek "Mother of God" is written onto a Buddhist theme in the shape of an egg. It is very beautiful......and others may wonder why why they are portrayed inside of the shape of the egg, but this is symbolic of a circle - a strong symbol of unity and eternity (because we can't tell which is the beginning and which is the ending of a circle), as the eternal God came as a man that man may have everlasting life and be united with Him eternally. Of course, the 'egg' bezel is a traditional theme in Greek iconography, and intends to show things which happened before the physical world, or to highlight themes which come from beyond the physical world...but the view of it as a "gilgal" (Aramaic = "circle") is just as beautiful and valid, IMHO.

On others who do amazing work creating icons, I'd suggest investigating the Writing School of the Indian Orthodox Church

Additionally, If interested, you may wish to investigate where The OrthodoxMysteries website now has Orthodox icons and chants from 100 cultures...

• Mary: Through the Eyes of Others

GG

If interested, here's one that I was very blessed by - as it's showing the Assumption of Mary, the Bearer of God -- a Chinese painting on silk (by Maria Yang Mengandung Allah diangkat ke surga, lukisan Cina di atas sutra)...while the latter shows Christ and his Mother (a painting by Monica Liu Ho Pei Ratu Damai dari Tiongkok, doakanlah aku, karya Monica Liu Ho Pei ).

And on a completely different side note, it has been interesting seeing imagery of Christ with other woman figures - such as Christ with the Samaritan woman, a Chinese painting by Lu Hong Nian

​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Icons are relativistic, as long as they do not become idols I don't think it matters what style they take.

Some of the presentations are rather timely when considering the differing way things can be portrayed.

[/CENTER]

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Shalom

Concerning what has been on my mind, I have been very much blessed of late with one of the ministries I've kept up with that does extensive focus on the many ways Indigenous cultures are often neglected in many Liturgical circles when it comes to the arts - especially as it concerns Icons. What stood out was the ways that others who are Aboriginals, for example, do not visualize Christ or many scenes in the scriptures in the same way that others in Greek or Byzantine culture did - and when expressing it in the manner they do, it truly does stand out.

<snip>

I personally believe that portraying things in a manner that fits the culture one is in will allow for iconography to have more of a widespread impact - as it seems in many cases that icons are limited to only the Byzantine style and that seems to be a hinderance to others being reached for Christ than others are willing to let on. As said elsewhere, one cannot make cultural norms based in the Church an idol when it comes to seeing how something was expressed in one era...and not being willing to change it at any point in order to help others see things more clearly if something arises. For just as others in the Byzantine era contexualized the Faith as they understood it in their times so as to be better able to make disciples/convey truth ....in the same manner Jewish believers from a Hellenized background used Greek concepts/imagery to convey Biblical principles to others in the Greek world so that they'd understand).... so it is the case, IMHO, that there should never be such a focus on the past that there's never ability to understand (or be able) to know when change may be necessary. IMHO, it's tragic when the church has taken the contextualization of one generation or one culture and declared that as normative for all time - or used it to condemn a new framing, a new contextualization. Personally...this is something that I must say has been my biggest concern with the "high" churches, especially Orthodoxy. I don't understand why the culture, art, hymnology, and symbols of 4th-century Byzantium are held in such high regard as to be considered in essence the peak of perfection, the summit of revelation...but anything differing from that, be it Assyrian or Oriential Orthodox and so forth, is treated with disdain or contempt.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Do you feel an Indigenous Iconography is something others should speak on more when it comes to expressing truth?

I agree with your thoughts on the matter entirely. I have Armenian and Coptic icons in my home alongside the western Ukrainian and the Byzantine styles for something like that exact reason, and I would like to have examples of modern non-western cultural artifacts that express the themes of Christian iconography one day, too.

Here is one particularly nice example of pursuing just that end: The Catholic Basilica of the Annuncation in Nazareth has some thirty-odd representations of Theotokos and Child, the Nativity, the Annunciation, and/or Jesus that each come from different world cultures and were donated by the churches within those countries. Many of them represent attempts by Catholics to present Christian themes and traditional iconography in the visual styles of those cultures (though not all). The church is surrounded by a wall around the perimeter of its territory, and these are displayed both on the inside of that wall, and on the interior wall of the Upper Church.

Here are a few samples that I felt were more unique (and relevant to this conversation; there are also some interesting modern art examples as well):

China:

Thailand:

Cameroon:

Japan:

And there are also two statues, the first from India and the second from Taiwan:

The full catalog, with many other countries and more traditional (but equally diverse) European and Latin American forms can be seen here: National Mosaics in the Basilica of Annunciation

 

[Shane R]

I wish this topic had come up when I still lived in San Antonio because a number of the smaller galleries have some iconography from Mexican artists. Some of it is good and some has too much of the style of Frida Kahlo for my taste. I think the icon can adopt comfortable cultural references, but it must not lose the truth of the Biblical narrative.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I have no problem with any of the icons that you posted.

You would probably enjoy this - called SILENT NIGHT, a Thai painting by Sawai Chinnawong
MALAM KUDUS, lukisan Thailand karya Sawai Chinnawong —

Also, You would probably enjoy this icon - as it concerns the Annunciation, a Thai painting Kabar Sukacita, lukisan Thailand —

And for one on The Creation, a Thai painting
Penciptaan, lukisan Thailand

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I wish this topic had come up when I still lived in San Antonio because a number of the smaller galleries have some iconography from Mexican artists. Some of it is good and some has too much of the style of Frida Kahlo for my taste. I think the icon can adopt comfortable cultural references, but it must not lose the truth of the Biblical narrative.

I think iconography from Mexican artists is very stunning - and it is interesting to see what has been occurring in regards to Mexican Iconography when considering how much the Gospel has been spreading there.

Also, I do feel where you're coming from when saying the Biblical narrative is what makes the main difference.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I agree with your thoughts on the matter entirely. I have Armenian and Coptic icons in my home alongside the western Ukrainian and the Byzantine styles for something like that exact reason,

I recently attended a Russian Orthodox Church (called St. Mary of Egypt Orthodox Church ) on my side which had Georgian, Ukrainian, Greek and many other ethnic representations of icons - it was truly beautiful and glad I went there (after I was told on it by a Coptic Orthodox believer I met and who encouraged me to investigate it since he enjoyed it).

Armenian Icons, as an aside, are truly stunning....

​

And of course, Coptic ones are astounding as well...

and I would like to have examples of modern non-western cultural artifacts that express the themes of Christian iconography one day, too.

Definitely right there with you - as I think it will take time

Here is one particularly nice example of pursuing just that end: The Catholic Basilica of the Annuncation in Nazareth has some thirty-odd representations of Theotokos and Child, the Nativity, the Annunciation, and/or Jesus that each come from different world cultures and were donated by the churches within those countries. Many of them represent attempts by Catholics to present Christian themes and traditional iconography in the visual styles of those cultures (though not all). The church is surrounded by a wall around the perimeter of its territory, and these are displayed both on the inside of that wall, and on the interior wall of the Upper Church.

Here are a few samples that I felt were more unique (and relevant to this conversation; there are also some interesting modern art examples as well):

China:

Thailand:

Cameroon:

Japan:

And there are also two statues, the first from India and the second from Taiwan:

The full catalog, with many other countries and more traditional (but equally diverse) European and Latin American forms can be seen here: National Mosaics in the Basilica of Annunciation

Very fascinating material - I wonder how long they have been in existence and how much their work is well-known...

That said, I absolutely LOVED the icon from China that was present - icons in mosaic form are always noteworthy to me

Concerning the issue, I came across this one of late and I thought it was truly fascinating.

​

For a brief description:

Mahamrityunjaya Mantra
&#2384; &#2340;&#2381;&#2352;&#2367;&#2319;&#2325; &#2346;&#2352;&#2350;&#2375;&#2358;&#2381;&#2357;&#2352; &#2351;&#2332;&#2366;&#2350;&#2361;&#2375; &#2360;&#2369;&#2327;&#2344;&#2381;&#2343;&#2367;&#2306;&#2350;&#2381; &#2346;&#2369;&#2359;&#2381;&#2335;&#2367;&#2357;&#2352;&#2381;&#2343;&#2344;&#2350;&#2381; &#2404;
&#2313;&#2352;&#2381;&#2357;&#2366;&#2352;&#2369;&#2325;&#2350;&#2367;&#2357; &#2348;&#2344;&#2381;&#2343;&#2344;&#2366;&#2344;&#2381; &#2350;&#2371;&#2340;&#2381;&#2351;&#2379;&#2352;&#2381;&#2350;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2359;&#2368;&#2351; &#2350;&#2366;&#2350;&#2371;&#2340;&#2366;&#2340;&#2381;

Prayer to the One who is Victorious over Death I worship the Three-in-One God who is fragrant and who nourishes and nurtures all beings. As a cucumber is freed from its bondage by the gardener, may He liberate me from bondage to death unto eternal life
​

Jesus sits upon a lotus flower, giving two mudras: His right hand showing the mudra of Abhaya, symbolizing protection, peace, benevolence, and dispelling of fear, while his left hand displays the Varada mudra, symbolizing &#8216;open-handed&#8217; generosity such as charity or the granting of wishes. Wikipedia writes that "it is nearly always shown made with the left hand by a revered figure devoted to human salvation from greed, anger and delusion." Behind his head is a cross halo. Fiery bands emanate from him, like an aureola. Overall, I think it's a dynamic design, and I like the gold tones throughout, which reminds me of ancient Byzantine mosaics. One thing that I question, however, is the use of the Tilak or Bindi symbol on Jesus' forehead.

Frank Wesley rarely used this symbol in his paintings of Jesus, though he did in at least one (rather, he typically opted for painting Jesus' forehead in a golden hue to represent knowledge of God). Naomi Wray writes that "here it may represent a vertical third eye, the never-closing eye of the all-seeing God." She concludes that "This was not an image readily accepted by the Christian community" (Frank Wesley: Exploring Faith With a Brush, 34).

Interestingly, the Yeshu Satsang Toronto, a monthly Hindu-style worship service lead by Chris Hale (of Christian music group Aradhna) and his wife Miranda Stone, provides sandlewood paste for followers of Jesus "to apply to their foreheads in the form of a dot (tilak). This symbolizes that the person is a spiritual seeker, serious about the pursuit of God."​

Also, here's the Dalit Madona...

​

And for another one:

​

​

Additionally...

​

With the above, it was drawn by two Catholic women artists from a village in South India. And in the village, a a certain species of tree is worshipped within animistic religion. The artists also make the tree central to worship, but it is Christ on the tree who is the object of worship.

They are all stunning to witness - although I would love to see some more in Mosaic style...and of course, when it comes to differing icons in the Orthodox world, the demonstrations do make you think..

​

​

 

[parsley]

Great thread! Amazing series of presentations. I would love to see dates with the images, giving frame of reference.

The batik with tree is remarkable.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

G2, thanks again for that second post. Those are beautiful. I really hope to get to Ethiopia in the next five years or so and if that's possible, come back with a slew of Ethiopian icons. Alas, Armenia will probably have to wait a bit longer. And Syriac icons, well, yeesh, who knows.

 

[MKJ]

Well, I actually think people need to be really really careful with this.

It is totally natural and ok in my view that icons borrow some of the artistic techniques and conventions of the culture which makes them.

And in many cases in the past it was quite natural that people would simply draw the figures looking like all the people around them. People did not always travel much, and their experience of the appearance and dress of other cultures would be more limited.

However, while icons are not meant to be realistic, they are also not pictures of pretend people, or some sort of avatar. They are meant to be real, specific people, with real, specific bodies.

Many people want to make icons like this in the name of multiculturalism, but they know quite well that Jesus was not Japanese and didn't look Japanese The only way they can do this is to say, deliberately or unconsciously, that it is the spirit that matters, not the body. This is quite different I think than what was happening in older settings or what happens in some folk traditions.

That idea that the spirit is the "real" part of us is a very common attitude among moderns who are not simply materialists, and in this context it is coming uncomfortably close to Docetism.

I think a much better way to emphasize that Christianity is meant to be universal is to make sure we include icons of our more local saints and saints of all kinds from many places, rather than inaccurately implying that Jesus body was somehow transmutable or can be seen in any way one chooses.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Well, I actually think people need to be really really careful with this.

It is totally natural and ok in my view that icons borrow some of the artistic techniques and conventions of the culture which makes them.

And in many cases in the past it was quite natural that people would simply draw the figures looking like all the people around them. People did not always travel much, and their experience of the appearance and dress of other cultures would be more limited.

However, while icons are not meant to be realistic, they are also not pictures of pretend people, or some sort of avatar. They are meant to be real, specific people, with real, specific bodies.

Many people want to make icons like this in the name of multiculturalism, but they know quite well that Jesus was not Japanese and didn't look Japanese The only way they can do this is to say, deliberately or unconsciously, that it is the spirit that matters, not the body. This is quite different I think than what was happening in older settings or what happens in some folk traditions.

That idea that the spirit is the "real" part of us is a very common attitude among moderns who are not simply materialists, and in this context it is coming uncomfortably close to Docetism.

I think a much better way to emphasize that Christianity is meant to be universal is to make sure we include icons of our more local saints and saints of all kinds from many places, rather than inaccurately implying that Jesus body was somehow transmutable or can be seen in any way one chooses.

I agree completely.

Mary

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well, I actually think people need to be really really careful with this.

It is totally natural and ok in my view that icons borrow some of the artistic techniques and conventions of the culture which makes them.

And in many cases in the past it was quite natural that people would simply draw the figures looking like all the people around them. People did not always travel much, and their experience of the appearance and dress of other cultures would be more limited.

However, while icons are not meant to be realistic, they are also not pictures of pretend people, or some sort of avatar. They are meant to be real, specific people, with real, specific bodies.

Many people want to make icons like this in the name of multiculturalism, but they know quite well that Jesus was not Japanese and didn't look Japanese The only way they can do this is to say, deliberately or unconsciously, that it is the spirit that matters, not the body. This is quite different I think than what was happening in older settings or what happens in some folk traditions.

That idea that the spirit is the "real" part of us is a very common attitude among moderns who are not simply materialists, and in this context it is coming uncomfortably close to Docetism.

I think a much better way to emphasize that Christianity is meant to be universal is to make sure we include icons of our more local saints and saints of all kinds from many places, rather than inaccurately implying that Jesus body was somehow transmutable or can be seen in any way one chooses.

I think this is where we need to be careful to keep the multicultural depictions of Christ somewhat abstract, and thus more in the Eastern and Oriental iconographic traditions. Take note of the icon from Cameroon up above; that's one I wouldn't have a problem with. What I'd have more of a problem with is a photorealistic, western art style depiction of Jesus as an actual west African (and, similarly, as a fifteenth century Italian).

Leontius of Jerusalem, defending the Chalcedonian Definition in the context of continued debates with Monophysites and Miaphysites, came up with what I think is a helpful distinction in this case. His understanding of the hypostatic union was that the pre-incarnate Son, both essentially divine and concretely a person, did not assume a similarly totalized human person which resulted in a union of those two total beings it one. That would be a sort of soft Nestorianianism (which is how some Miaphysites saw Chalcedon). Rather, the total pre-incarnate person assumed abstract human nature into the total complex of the divine person, so that there is no new person but rather the same person whose nature was now human as well as divine. Thus, Christ was a particular person, but his humanity was not merely, say, a clone of the Virgin Mary. He assumed the totality of human nature. That means, inasmuch as icons are depicting cosmic realities (a Pantocrator, the Divine Love of Theotokos and Son, a Transfiguration) there's a certain logic to depicting him in some other abstract cultural form (again, the icon from Cameroon), whereas that logic doesn't hold up quite as well for concrete historical events like the nativity (although that sometimes represents the Eternal Nativity of the Son from the Father), the crucifixion, the Last Supper, etc. Thoughts?

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I agree with MKJ, but I would go farther even and say that it is bad theology to put Christ in certain positions (such as the Buddhist/lotus flower above). These postures mean something in the religion they come from, and what they are saying about the person in that position is not what we say about Christ. Someone from outside the tradition may see it as putting Christ in a position of spiritual power that a Buddhist will recognize. A Buddhist, however, is far more likely to read the icon as saying Christ acheived Nirvana. Symbols are words - they mean things. We can't just co-opt them arbitrarily.

I also vehemently disagree that we can say anything about a 'pre-incarnational Christ' but that might be for a different thread.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well, I actually think people need to be really really careful with this.

It is totally natural and ok in my view that icons borrow some of the artistic techniques and conventions of the culture which makes them.

And in many cases in the past it was quite natural that people would simply draw the figures looking like all the people around them. People did not always travel much, and their experience of the appearance and dress of other cultures would be more limited.

However, while icons are not meant to be realistic, they are also not pictures of pretend people, or some sort of avatar. They are meant to be real, specific people, with real, specific bodies.

Many people want to make icons like this in the name of multiculturalism, but they know quite well that Jesus was not Japanese and didn't look Japanese The only way they can do this is to say, deliberately or unconsciously, that it is the spirit that matters, not the body. This is quite different I think than what was happening in older settings or what happens in some folk traditions.

That idea that the spirit is the "real" part of us is a very common attitude among moderns who are not simply materialists, and in this context it is coming uncomfortably close to Docetism.

I am with you as it concerns not walking into anything without caution or wisdom on the issue.

However, what I think should be kept in mind is not so much what other modernists may say - but what the authors behind the icons and art have said as it concerns the intent since it can be very easy to assume a motive for what another shares when they are not in that framework. People making icons from a more abstract reality understand that they represent real people in spiritual realities.....and for that matter, spiritual entities that none of us have actually seen outside of descriptions within the Scriptures/Tradition.

We know, for example, that there have been depictions of Spiritual realities (as it concerns entities without bodies) whenever it comes to icons and the Holy Spirit...

[URL="https://servantofprayer.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/looking-to-pascha/"]

[/URL]

​

Additionally, as it concerns the Jesus body and how the Lord portrays Himself, we also realize that Christ Himself (who was transfigured to be brighter than the Sun itself in Mark 9 when it came to His True Glory) has repeatedly shown himself in differing presentations.

Thus, if that was the case then, it stands to reason that it would be off (IMHO) to act as if Christ could not do so when it comes to ethnic features - there are numerous cases where the Lord has come to people in countries where the Gospel is not allowed and revealed Himself to them in dreams, as is the case in Muslim nations....with the Lord appearing in forms they are familar with..

But if the Lord could only be seen in one form....heaven help John the apostle with the things he saw, as he really was tripping to see a LAmb on the throne as well as other heavenly beings.... Same with where the OT describes (according to God) as Him being an ALL-Consuming fire and appearing as a cloud of Smoke (discussed in Hebrews 12-13, more discussed here)--or being the Rock that followed them around in the wilderness, according to I Corinthians 10. God is just too limited for all that.

And granted, there are other spiritual realities that are far too extensive to portray - although the Early Church often sought to show as best as they could....like Christ with the 24 elders and the other creatures in the Heavenlies which we have never seen and yet give description to in reverence.

For myself, everything was always meant to point to Christ...and the symbols are shadows which find their light in the Messiah whom they come from. And the ways the Lord describes Himself is how we should view him. If God said that He was a cloud of dark smoke/billowing fire, Exodus 19 / Deuteronomy 4:10-12 /Deuteronomy 4 / f bDeuteronomy 5:21-23 / Deuteronomy 5 / 2 Samuel 22:9-11 / 1 Kings 8:11-13 /1 Kings 8 / Psalm 97:1-3 / Isaiah 6:10 /Hebrews 12:20 ---it'd be idolatry if one came along later saying that another believer could not think of God as such---even in thought----as he or she is going counter to what the Lord Himself has said.

The same goes for when the Lord was shown to be in the form of a Lamb. We know he did not rise from the grave looking like a literal sheep, yet in the Heavenlies (according to Revelation 13:7-9 , Revelation 5:5-7 , Revelation 7:16-17, Revelation 14:3-5 ), there is some kind of sense that the Lord has appeared to look as such...and for that matter, appearing as a Lion in compliments to the Lamb

Revelation 5:5
Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals."
​

Revelation 7:14-16Revelation 7

The Great Multitude in White Robes ​

9After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10And they cried out in a loud voice:​

"Salvation belongs to our God,
who sits on the throne,
and to the Lamb."​

11All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying:​

"Amen!
Praise and glory
and wisdom and thanks and honor
and power and strength
be to our God for ever and ever.
Amen!"​

Revelation 19:10-12

The Rider on the White Horse

11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[]

​

And seeing that this is the Lord of the Universe Himself who can and has taken on MULTIPLE FORMS---yet He's still worthy of WORSHIP in all of them.

Taking the issue further, as it concerns the forms that the Lord appears in...​

Revelation 4:2-3
2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. 3 And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald.

Revelation 5:1
1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals.

​

God doesn't hide that he can be seen (or even imagined) in a form. We are made in His image; Moses in the cleft of the rock saw his back, was covered by His hand, and couldn't look upon His face. Reveleation above gives a jeweled description of His appearance, and reiterates that He is not a vapor, a ghostly-spirit, but rather has a "right hand". We are in His image and likeness and it is reasonable to view Him this way...even though none of us will EVer be able to comprehend who He is fully.

I think a much better way to emphasize that Christianity is meant to be universal is to make sure we include icons of our more local saints and saints of all kinds from many places, rather than inaccurately implying that Jesus body was somehow transmutable or can be seen in any way one chooses.

I agree that an inclusion of more local saints would make a world of difference on the matter - although when it comes to depictions of him in differing cultures, I think that is where pause goes for me.

One of the best places that speaks on the issue if OrthodoxMysteries -WorldMap which goes through the various icons around the world and throughout history in the Orthodox World

What often seems to happen is a forgetting of the fact that there were always many depictions of Icons (at least within Orthodoxy alone) when it came to both the Theotokos, Christ or the Apostles - be it portraying Christ with Coptic features or portraying Mary with Japanese features - as the reality is that Christ is Divine and no one knows what he looks like fully anyhow, but he is still the representation of ALL mankind in what man was meant to be. To see otherwise would be like claiming there could not be a Black Madona because of feeling that Christ's mother could not have been black - the Blessed Theotokos, although lesser than Jesus, is still playing a grand role in the scheme of things and yet the early Church had no issue with depicting her differently depending on the culture even though she was glorified.

There are many valid reasons why cultures in the Early Church chose to portray both Christ and the saints as reflective of the cultures they came from - ]Plenty of other icons besides those, especially if dealing with the basics within Ethopian Orthodoxy and other parts of Oriential Orthodoxy. There were icons throughout history showing Christ and the Hebrews as European, Middle Eastern and African..

​

Obvious is the case that there are battles between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriential Orthodoxy when it comes to depictions/heritage claims (more discussed here)---but that's another issue. There's also the Black Madonna of Cz&#281;stochowa ..and other Church fathers shown with darker features:​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think this is where we need to be careful to keep the multicultural depictions of Christ somewhat abstract, and thus more in the Eastern and Oriental iconographic traditions. Take note of the icon from Cameroon up above; that's one I wouldn't have a problem with. What I'd have more of a problem with is a photorealistic, western art style depiction of Jesus as an actual west African (and, similarly, as a fifteenth century Italian).

I definitely agree when it comes to the benefit of having more abstract presentations of Christ as the safer option when it comes to multicultural depictions of Christ - as the one from Cameroon was excellent.

Where icons are too real is where I can become cautious ...

Leontius of Jerusalem, defending the Chalcedonian Definition in the context of continued debates with Monophysites and Miaphysites, came up with what I think is a helpful distinction in this case. His understanding of the hypostatic union was that the pre-incarnate Son, both essentially divine and concretely a person, did not assume a similarly totalized human person which resulted in a union of those two total beings it one. That would be a sort of soft Nestorianianism (which is how some Miaphysites saw Chalcedon). Rather, the total pre-incarnate person assumed abstract human nature into the total complex of the divine person, so that there is no new person but rather the same person whose nature was now human as well as divine. Thus, Christ was a particular person, but his humanity was not merely, say, a clone of the Virgin Mary. He assumed the totality of human nature. That means, inasmuch as icons are depicting cosmic realities (a Pantocrator, the Divine Love of Theotokos and Son, a Transfiguration) there's a certain logic to depicting him in some other abstract cultural form (again, the icon from Cameroon), whereas that logic doesn't hold up quite as well for concrete historical events like the nativity (although that sometimes represents the Eternal Nativity of the Son from the Father), the crucifixion, the Last Supper, etc.

How to understand the nature of Christ and its relation to the world is a very crucial key when it comes to how to see the issue and I thank you for bringing it up - it was something I had considered bringing up when it came to the ways others understood the concept of Christ taking on Flesh (more shared here and here). Of course, as it concerns the concepts of icons, they are like links that take you into the world beyond this one - and that concept transcends anything we are used to in this world alone, so even as we view an icon (such as the Icon from Cameroon) and see it in a more abstract format, what has to be remembered is not only that the Western world does not define truth alone - but also that spiritual realities transcend our understanding.