Do traditional icons and images of Jesus and Mary as WHITE-SKINNED people harm efforts to evangelize our dark-skinned brethren?

[Apryl]

No, I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy, or even a “sad tradition”; it’s not up to that level.

It’s mere artistic convention, howsoever inaccurate, and nothing more. (After all, you don’t think that Egyptians walked flat and sideways, do you?)

I think you’ve decided to reduce this to ‘but they’re just pictures’. I don’t agree with that.

So long as we sit on opposite sides of that fence, I don’t think we (you and I, not the world in general) will move beyond that.

But, the question that this thread was addressing was if icons (as many of them are presented) harm our efforts to evangelize.

I think it does.

I think it affects not just are ‘dark-skinned brethren’, but people in general.

I think it’s sad that most Americans (again, I am not attempting to touch on the behavior of those outside of this country) think that being Catholic, and in fact, being ANY kind of Christian, is something that is foriegn to people of a darker hue.

Perhaps you are advanced beyond that. If so, you are in the minority

 

[Wolseley]

These kinds of discussions always remind me of a story I read about a couple who adopted a little Chinese girl. The father was blonde and the mother was a redhead.

When the little girl was old enough to start drawing pictures in school, her class had the assignment to draw a picture of a Nativity scene for Christmas. The pictures were put on the wall of the classroom, and after the Christmas pageant one evening before the Christmas break, the parents of the kids in the class were invited to tour the room and look at the pictures drawn by the children.

The mother of the little girl found her daughter’s picture first, while the father was chatting with some of the other fathers. Then he noticed his wife standing in a corner, looking a bit upset. He went over to see what was wrong, and wordlessly, eyes brimming with tears, but nevertheless a huge smile on her face, she pointed to their daughter’s picture on the wall.

It was pretty standard—the Star, the stable, the animals, Mary kneeling next to the Baby in the manger, and Joseph standing protectively over the two of them. There was only one major difference.

Joseph was blonde. Mary was red-haired. And in the manger, Baby Jesus was olive-skinned, black-haired, with almond-shaped eyes.

The little girl had drawn the Holy Family based on her own family.

Moral? It doesn’t make any difference what color we are, or what color they were. All Christians are God’s children.

In the earliest years of the Church, the attitude held by the early Christians was that there were two races: those who were Christians, and those who were not. The rest of it was irrelevant. Romans, Jews or Greeks, it didn’t matter—God is no respecter of persons.

I often regret that we lost that.

 

[Apryl]

Moral? It doesn’t make any difference what color we are, or what color they were. All Christians are God’s children.

Beautiful story!

(I’ve heard it before, but could hear it over and over again)

So, since you appear new to this thread:

Do you believe that images of the Holy Family that show the Holy Family as white skinned hurts our efforts to evangelize our dark-skinned brethren?

I’m not talking about evangelizing YOU, but about people who may not see themselves in the pictures that others draw of the Holy Family?

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<I think you’ve decided to reduce this to ‘but they’re just pictures’. I don’t agree with that.>>

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. The Holy Icons are not “just pictures”, but proclaim the faith of the Church. They are to be contemplated spiritually, and not with the attitude that every single accidental detail has dogmatic significance.

There is an Ethiopian style of iconography that is unique to them and is quite different from the Byzantine and Slavic styles. Yes, I will venerate them, because they likewise express the Orthodox faith. (Lest anyone have scruples, the Ethiopians and Copts are not Monophysites as condemned by the Council now–if they ever were.)

I met a black American convert to Orthodoxy who has mastered the Ethiopian style. Why should he not follow this style that is justly part of his heritage?

Western religious art–and at its best is beautiful and moving–doesn’t fulfil the same spiritual and liturgical functions of iconography.

<<I think it’s sad that most Americans (again, I am not attempting to touch on the behavior of those outside of this country) think that being Catholic, and in fact, being ANY kind of Christian, is something that is foriegn to people of a darker hue.>>

I’ve never met anyone who thinks that.

 

[Apryl]

(In response to this earlier post from Apryl)

<<I think it’s sad that most Americans (again, I am not attempting to touch on the behavior of those outside of this country) think that being Catholic, and in fact, being ANY kind of Christian, is something that is foriegn to people of a darker hue.>>

I’ve never met anyone who thinks that.

Ok.

So maybe this is why you can’t understand what I’m talking about.

 

[Bennie_P]

Ok, but I’m an American, in America, exposed to mostly Americans.

I’m not talking about other people in other places.

What are we ‘teaching’ American kids?

My parish is multi-racial and multi-national, so the children are being taught that Christ is for and of all the races and nationalities. The see Chirst in art from around the world and depicted as dark skin, yellow skinned and light skinned. What is more important they are seeing Christ through the actions of our members represented in all races and nationalities. The Church by the way is growing the fastest in Africa, Asia and southern Americas then in Europe and North America. The Church majority is a Church of Color, White European Catholics and Catholics of White European descent has become the minorty. I wouldn’t be suprised if the next Pope doesn’t come from Africa. Once we sent missionary priest to Africa and Asia, today they are coming from Africa and Asia. In fact our parish has a visiting priest from Africa while our pastor is on vacation.

 

[bpbasilphx]

This says it all:

SOME CHILDREN SEE HIM
–Alfred Burt

Some children see Him lily white,
The baby Jesus born this night
Some children see Him lily white,
With tresses soft and fair.
Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
The Lord of heaven to earth come down;
Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
With dark and heavy hair.

Some children see Him almond-eyed,
This Savior whom we kneel beside,
Some children see Him almond-eyed,
With skin of yellow hue.
Some children see Him dark as they,
Sweet Mary’s Son, to Whom we pray;
Some children see Him dark as they,
And ah! they love Him, too!

The children in each different place
Will see the baby Jesus’ face
Like theirs, but bright and heavenly grace,
And filled with holy light.
O lay aside each early thing,
And with thy heart as offering,
Come worship now the infant King,
'Tis love that’s born tonight!

 

[po18guy]

I’m black and I’ve never been bothered by a beautiful European looking painting of Mary and Jesus. When I go to the Spanish Mass they have an Indian looking Jesus and Our Lady of Guadalupe looks Mexican. Our Lady of Africa looks Ghanian. Our Lady of China looks like a Mandarin lady. The darker skinned brethern are not as emotionally delicate as some would think. As for Malcom X, back when he was Malcom Little he was a thug who would’ve used any excuse for his behavior. At the end of his life he realized that the black man as god theory of the Nation of Islam was garbage.

Very well said. This is exactly why we are called to see Christ reflected in ALL whom we encounter. The Lord God made all of us to be just what we are-and it is a perfect reflection of His Divine will. No matter how Christ and Mother Mary appear, I’m eternally grateful for the fact that they exist.

The peace of Christ be with all of you.

 

[historybrat]

Just my two cents here…

I’m an American and while a recent convert I guess it just never occured to me that other countries wouldn’t have saints, and that a good chunk of these saints would be a different color than me (white).

Also before we start dumbing down all American children give them a little credit. I’m a teacher in a very small very red-neck type town. Last year when we were learning about various religions (history class) all of my students (public high school) were well aware that Jesus was not blonde hair blue eyed. When I pointed out the sterotype that shows up in alot of images, my students looked up at me like I had grown another head. They then pointed out that those images aren’t real and Jesus came from the Middle Eastern not Southern California.

I’m not saying that the sterotype doesn’t exist and that prehaps some people aren’t turn off my it. However, if you don’t join a religion cause you don’t like the color of the skin of whoever is protrayed then your faith probably wasn’t that strong to begin with. Also lets not automatically dumb everybody down. People are generally smarter than they are given credit for.

Historybrat

 

[Petergee]

Thank you. This is informative. But have you read Malcolm X? It bothered him deeply that Jesus was always depicted with too light of skin. Now, we have millions of ‘Black Muslims’ who are being lost from the true church.

In the African American world, race makes a huge difference when it comes to evangelization.

I guess no-one ever informed Mal that Mohamed was also white! Of course the Moslems ban any depiction of him.
Obviously Malcolm X was an idiot. I refuse to believe that any more than a tiny minority of dark-skinned people are so stupid as to think a religion can only be true if its founder had the same colour skin as they have.

Then again the mainstream media obviously think all Christians are idiots. I remember a couple of years ago some group made a scientific study to come up with an image what Jesus would have probably looked like. Surprise surprise, the image looked like a typical Middle-Eastern man with swarthy skin and dark curly hair. The media made this front page news, and the accompanyiing copy made it clear they expected this news to shock Christians and even shake them out of their faith!

Asians and Africans are pouring into the Church by the millions. Icons of Jesus and Mary as white-skinned don’t seem to deter them at all.

 

[dwc]

. I remember a couple of years ago some group made a scientific study to come up with an image what Jesus would have probably looked like. Surprise surprise, the image looked like a typical Middle-Eastern man with swarthy skin and dark curly hair. The media made this front page news, and the accompanyiing copy made it clear they expected this news to shock Christians and even shake them out of their faith!

I remember this “news.” True, they expected the average Christian to go, “Shazam, Jesus looked Middle-Eastern?”

I don’t know if traditional images of Jesus and Mary as caucasian hinder evangelization. I can’t see that it helps. In the interest of truth, since our Church lays claim to the fullness of truth, I would like more realistic portrayals.

 

[Apryl]

I remember this “news.” True, they expected the average Christian to go, “Shazam, Jesus looked Middle-Eastern?”
.

You keep saying ‘Average Christian’.

I think it’s the average AMERICAN Christian.

(Carry on)

 

[dwc]

You keep saying ‘Average Christian’.

Um, since that was my first post in the entire thread, I haven’t “kept saying” anything.

 

[Apryl]

Um, since that was my first post in the entire thread, I haven’t “kept saying” anything.

My ‘you’, in the prior post, was plural

I don’t know of a better way to have stated that in a grammically correct fashion

… but you got my point, right?

 

[dwc]

What point? That you feel compelled to editorialize other poster’s posts? Yeah, I got that.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

The premise of this whole argument is silly - you’re basically saying that minorities will discriminate against Catholic evangelists if their literature has a white Jesus on it instead of a black one? Do you think that people are actually that shallow?

What’s next? Should the brochures be written in a different style to be more accessible to urban audiences? How about an ebonics explanation of the Catholic Church? “Yo, my man Peter was Jesus’ homeboy, and Jesus named him da Rock cause he was representin’ the one true Church!”

This reminds me of those lame Christian rap groups that turn teenagers’ faith into a fad - they aren’t making Christianity better, and they’re making rap WORSE!

I think we’ll get farther by evangelizing to our brothers and sisters in an open and honest fashion, not by insulting their intelligence by pandering to their race.

 

[Apryl]

The premise of this whole argument is silly - you’re basically saying that minorities will discriminate against Catholic evangelists if their literature has a white Jesus on it instead of a black one? Do you think that people are actually that shallow?

No. I don’t think people that react negatively to images that seem inappropriate (by their standards) as being shallow.

That would be like trying to go to a Fortune 500 Gathering and sell Barbie Dolls that weren’t in pink. Um… it just doesn’t fit. It’s not ‘appropriate’.

We are talking about telling someone of people in a part of the world where EVERY ONE ELSE has a certain look. But you are trying to sell them a Jesus that doesn’t look like the others of His geographic area.

… and your response is to refer to the audience as shallow?

What’s next? Should the brochures be written in a different style to be more accessible to urban audiences? How about an ebonics explanation of the Catholic Church? “Yo, my man Peter was Jesus’ homeboy, and Jesus named him da Rock cause he was representin’ the one true Church!”

1. Who said anything about ‘urban’? And even if they did (there have been a lot of posts on this) ‘urbanites’ aren’t the only ones we are talking of evangelizing to.
2. If you don’t get Ebonics, please leave them alone. Your comments are strife with inaccuracies. It’s pretty insulting.

I won’t even come up with a reply of some other example, because I really don’t care to insult someone else to prove this point.

1. There is nothing wrong with using the vernacular of your audience, be they urban, speak ebonics, or any other description.

This reminds me of those lame Christian rap groups that turn teenagers’ faith into a fad - they aren’t making Christianity better, and they’re making rap WORSE!

I happen to agree with a lot of this sentiment. But then, if it gets them in the door, and in the pew, it’s probably not all bad. Just not something that would attract either of us.

I think we’ll get farther by evangelizing to our brothers and sisters in an open and honest fashion, not by insulting their intelligence by pandering to their race.

Again, I agree with you.

But is it more open and honest to represent (artistically) Jesus in a way that is obviously not correct? Who are you pandering to? And what is the benefit of such a pander?

Let us be open and honest. Jesus did not look like Jeffrey Hunter (the actor that portrayed Him in the 1960s movie, “King of Kings”).

That is what we (at least I) are talking against. That is not open or honest. Sadly, there are those that see that and think, ‘Oh, reality’

 

[pumpkinbeast]

As an aside, I saw a painting of Jesus’s agony in the Garden, and He was depicted with bright orange hair.

 

[jc-servant]

I think a lot of this discussion has focused on images as though the mere image is the real issue. There is a broader context in the US that underlies any discussion of race/color. We have to honestly acknowledge our history and take it into account when doing evangelization in any community. Some people see more than just an artist’s style when they see “white Jesus.”

Seeing so many of the available images of the Holy Family looking Nordic (IMO) didn’t prevent me from entering the church, but it does bother me at times.

Does anyone remember the scientific study done with children and the black and white dolls back before desegregation? Children had received the value that white was “right” and black was not based on being overwhelmed with images of only white people in the “good” images and clothes and jobs, etc. I can personally remember marking the TV guide with the family when we heard a show or two had a black person on it. This was within the last 30 years, so it still influences people’s thoughts and feelings now.

Why join a church that has been presented as “not for you” by common images? A lot of people are not going to delve further. Some do (as can be seen by many conversions) and some don’t. It does not mean that those who don’t become Catholic are shallow or require “pandering to their race” because they choose a different church or even another religion when we as Catholics may have failed in our duty to properly sow the ground before sowing the seeds of the faith.

 

[Apryl]

Seeing so many of the available images of the Holy Family looking Nordic (IMO) didn’t prevent me from entering the church, but it does bother me at times.

… and another thing to consider: I believe that for MOST people that are in the church today, the images didn’t keep them from being in the church.

Whether it’s because they were so young, or there were other influences.

But if we are to look at evangelizing those that are not in the church, what can we do to make things better?

The ‘Nordic’ (I usually say ‘Scandanavian’) images only bother me when I’m looking for prayer cards, or other stuff, and there are no images that represent the rest of the world.

Oh, and looking at magazine articles. All the darker people are in such impoverished countries, and they are the result of missionaries. There are Black Catholics all over the world (whether they term themselves ‘Black’ or not) and of all socio-economic backgrounds. So, in those cases, the ‘Nordic’ images bother me at those times, too.

Come and take MY picture!