JESUS -- In Living COLOR :)!
RNKA...@webtv.net
December 13, 1999
[Copyright 1999 The Associated Press]
Catholic Magazine Picks Art of
Dark-Skinned Jesus -By David Crary
NEW YORK (AP) -- A painting of a dark-skinned Jesus, by an artist who
used a woman as a model, has been selected by a Catholic publication as
the winner of its contest to update the image of Christ for the new
millennium.
The painting, "Jesus of the People," was selected from nearly 1,700
entries for the cover of a special millennium issue being published this
week by the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newsweekly and
one of the best-known Catholic publications in the country.
"My goal was to be as inclusive as possible," said the artist,
Janet McKenzie, from her studio in Island Pond, Vt. "At first glance, he
is a black or African-American Jesus, but looking more deeply you see
many people in it."
The painting shows a robed and haloed Jesus. Against a pale pink
background are a yin-yang symbol, intended to represent perfect balance,
and a feather, symbolizing the American Indian spirituality that
McKenzie learned about during a stay in New Mexico.
The painting "is a haunting image of a peasant Jesus -- dark,
thick-lipped, looking out on us with ineffable dignity, with sadness but
with confidence," wrote Sister Wendy Beckett, the 69-year-old British
nun and host of a public television series about art. She selected the
winner and three runners-up.
In the view of one of the judges, Sherry Lynn Best, who directs an art
gallery at Rockhurst University: "It's not real masculine. It's not real
feminine. It's not really androgynous, either."
Contestants in 19 countries, ranging from children to prominent graphic
designers, submitted entries that a three-member jury winnowed to 10
finalists.
The contest was conceived by the National Catholic Reporter's editor,
Michael Farrell, who had hoped it would produce a provocative winner.
"If everybody looks at it and says, 'Very nice,' that means it
will have failed," he said. "Every new work of art that has been worth
anything has been controversial when it first appeared."
McKenzie, who wins a $2,000 first prize, describes herself as a "devout
agnostic" with an interest in many faiths. She has devoted much of her
work to images of strong, spiritual women.
Her Jesus, she said, was intended to be a masculine presence, but she
sought to add subtly a feminine dimension by using a woman as a model.
"This painting is about love," she said. "It's about reminding all
of us about the importance of celebrating our differences."
The judges who reviewed the entries said they were struck by the
variety: abstract designs, computer graphics, Jesus as a homeless
person, Jesus in outer space cradling the Earth, a Jesus with superhero
biceps.
"I think Jesus would have liked this contest," said one of the
judges, Pattie Wigand Sporrong of Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.
"It didn't have a lot of boundaries and barriers."
McKenzie, 51, is a Brooklyn native who moved to Vermont in 1976. Her
base is Island Pond, a small town in the sparsely populated northeastern
corner of the state where she sometimes paints 12 hours at a stretch in
the wing of a 135-year-old house.
"Jesus of the People' simply came through me," McKenzie said. "I
feel as though I am only a vehicle for its existence."
The 50,000-circulation National Catholic Reporter, based in Kansas City,
Mo., and founded in 1964, has taken pride in its independence, its
support for ecumenical reforms and its willingness to provoke debate.
Farrell, in a column in the new issue, predicted the choice of "Jesus of
the People" would carry on that tradition.
"We got a strong impression that the era of the blond, blue-eyed
Jesus is over," he wrote. "When the church was overwhelmingly a Western
institution, we made Jesus in our likeness. ... This work of art may be
prophetic of where and how Christianity will flourish in the next
millennium or two."
-=<>=- -=<>=- -=<>=-
Nurse KAT says: Wow! Is Christianity FINALLY facing a little REALITY,
here? Let's hope their quest for the truth continues. BTW...I wonder
when they're going to take those OTHER pictures down...hmmm...I,
somehow, think they're not QUITE ready for THAT much truth-telling yet
:)! PEACE!
RNKA...@webtv.net
cut and pasted it that way (though I read the same story in my local
paper, so I knew it was true).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/digest/nd1.htm
This is the URL for today's "Nationline" section of USA Today, on which
there is the "new" picture of Jesus. Keep scrolling, because it's the
last story on the page, and it includes a link to the story I posted
earlier (from the Associated Press).
Nurse KAT says: PEACE!
Mary
painting, but I guess we cannot have that yet!
RNKA...@webtv.net Scribbled:
: Nurse KAT says: Wow! Is Christianity FINALLY facing a little REALITY,
: here? Let's hope their quest for the truth continues.
As a Christian, I'd tell you that my faith isn't a -quest- for truth, I
already know the truth. Let's leave it at that, since debates about
religion aren't always pretty.
: BTW...I wonder
: when they're going to take those OTHER pictures down...hmmm...I,
: somehow, think they're not QUITE ready for THAT much truth-telling yet
Okay. Not that I really care (I believe Jesus loves me whatever colour I
am, so I love him, whatever colour He came as), but, what was the proof
that Jesus was Black, again? Like, what I actually think is that since
Jesus came from some Middle Eastern area (Mus've been an Israelite, Lion
of the tribe of Judah, and all), his colour might have looked something
like that.
I also find this funny. If you refer to Christians as "-their- quest for
truth," I assume you're not a Christian, but once it's time to say that
Jesus was Black, you're all up for "truth telling."
--
blah
Mary
: paper, so I knew it was true).
Oh, I didn't doubt it was true for one second. I just was interested in
seeing the picture myself.
: http://www.usatoday.com/news/digest/nd1.htm
Thanks for the URL!
--
blah
RNKA...@webtv.net
>JESUS -- In Living COLOR :)!
>As a Christian, I'd tell you that my faith
>isn't a -quest- for truth, I already know the
>truth. Let's leave it at that, since debates
>about religion aren't always pretty.
I agree that religious debates can, sometimes, get ugly. I must say,
however, that I don't understand why. There are many, MANY religions,
and most that I'VE looked into, preach love and tolerance, but as soon
as one questions or contradicts any of the teachings/doctrines of some
of these religions, tolerance seems to fly out the window (don't believe
me? Go to TalkCity, and into a chat room called Spirituality-JesusCafe,
and question ANY Christian doctrine...the stones are thrown before you
can finish your sentence!).
So...as you said...we'll leave that alone.
>what was the proof that Jesus was Black,
>again? Like, what I actually think is that
>since Jesus came from some Middle
>Eastern area (Mus've been an Israelite,
>Lion of the tribe of Judah, and all), his
>colour might have looked something like
>that.
I never offered any "proof" that Jesus was "black." I never even
INSINUATED that I thought Jesus was "black." Jesus WAS an Israelite,
and the Jews of that time, in that area, had dark complexions.
Revelation 1: 14-15 states, "His head and his hairs were white like
wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his
feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice
as the sound of many waters." What IS the texture of a lamb's wool?
Tight and curly. What IS the color of burned brass? Brown.
Now...once again...I NEVER said Jesus was "black," but he CERTAINLY
wasn't what we normally see illustrated...a white man, with straight,
dirty blond hair and beard, and blue eyes.
The artist, herself, had this to say:
-=<>=-
"My goal was to be as inclusive as possible," said the artist, Janet
McKenzie, from her studio in Island Pond, Vt. "At first glance, he is a
black or African-American Jesus, but looking more deeply you see many
people in it."
-=<>=-
>I also find this funny.
As I find funny, the fact that you started this post saying you didn't
want to debate religion, but here we are :).
>If you refer to Christians as "-their- quest
>for truth," I assume you're not a Christian,
Mighty big assumption, there. Had you asked, I would have replied, that
the "their" to whom I refer, are the leaders of the various
denominations of Christianity...the ones who possess the power to
institute, revoke, and/or change religious doctrine (and imagery).
>but once it's time to say that Jesus was
>Black, you're all up for "truth telling."
And once again...you won't find a single instance where I said Jesus was
"black."
I don't know about anyone else, but I, personally, am ALWAYS on a quest
for truth, especially once I've been told a lie, and the images I've
been shown my entire life, depicting "my savior," have all been lies.
Life has taught me that ONE lie, often begets another lie...and so on,
and so on. I think it only makes sense to study a variety of sources,
and then make an informed (rather than PROGRAMMED) decision, about which
path one travels to achieve spiritual salvation.
Nurse KAT says: I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs, because there
is just about nothing as personal as one's relationship with God...but
you asked :). PEACE!
Mary
: and question ANY Christian doctrine...the stones are thrown before you
: can finish your sentence!).
I don't throw stones, though. It's usually because of other people that I
like avoiding this. If you won't throw any stones, then the floor is open.
: I never offered any "proof" that Jesus was "black."
That's why I asked.
: I never even
: INSINUATED that I thought Jesus was "black."
Well, if you agreed with the new painting and wondered when they'd take
down the old pictures... Except, again, we have differing opinions on
what's Black or Brown or Mixed or whatever. Did you think the picture
depicted the right image? If they painted an African-American looking
Jesus, and you thought this was right, then I assumed you thought Jesus
was Black. I'm not insisting that this is what you thought, I'm just
showing you how you insinuated that you thought he was Black.
: Jesus WAS an Israelite,
: and the Jews of that time, in that area, had dark complexions.
How dark? Darker than the Middle Easterner's of today? How about the proof
of this one? (I currently don't have any views on this, so I'm not
challenging what you're saying as I have no counter argument, so don't be
defensive, I've never seen Jesus, just tell me your proof.)
: Revelation 1: 14-15 states, "His head and his hairs were white like
: wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his
: feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice
: as the sound of many waters."
Okay. I'm quite sure this is the risen Jesus, but I'm not too sure who the
paintings make. Probably risen, though, since some of them have Jesus with
holes in his hands and stuff.
: What IS the texture of a lamb's wool?
: Tight and curly. What IS the color of burned brass? Brown.
hrm...Interesting.
: Now...once again...I NEVER said Jesus was "black," but he CERTAINLY
: wasn't what we normally see illustrated...a white man, with straight,
: dirty blond hair and beard, and blue eyes.
: The artist, herself, had this to say:
: -=<>=-
: "My goal was to be as inclusive as possible," said the artist, Janet
: McKenzie, from her studio in Island Pond, Vt. "At first glance, he is a
: black or African-American Jesus, but looking more deeply you see many
: people in it."
: -=<>=-
:>I also find this funny.
: As I find funny, the fact that you started this post saying you didn't
: want to debate religion, but here we are :).
:>If you refer to Christians as "-their- quest
:>for truth," I assume you're not a Christian,
: Mighty big assumption, there. Had you asked, I would have replied, that
: the "their" to whom I refer, are the leaders of the various
: denominations of Christianity...the ones who possess the power to
: institute, revoke, and/or change religious doctrine (and imagery).
No, the assumption was that you're not a Christian. Are you?
:>but once it's time to say that Jesus was
:>Black, you're all up for "truth telling."
: And once again...you won't find a single instance where I said Jesus was
: "black."
I did find one you insinuated, though, but that's all cleared up now.
: I don't know about anyone else, but I, personally, am ALWAYS on a quest
: for truth, especially once I've been told a lie, and the images I've
: been shown my entire life, depicting "my savior," have all been lies.
*LOL*
Maybe you should have known that there weren't any camera's in Jesus'
time, and so people were only going to depict their imagination in their
art or draw what they felt like drawing. You should have also known that
this imagery should have (had) nothing to do with your faith since you're
not worshipping the picture.
: Life has taught me that ONE lie, often begets another lie...and so on,
: and so on. I think it only makes sense to study a variety of sources,
: and then make an informed (rather than PROGRAMMED) decision, about which
: path one travels to achieve spiritual salvation.
Hell yeah.
: Nurse KAT says: I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs, because there
: is just about nothing as personal as one's relationship with God...but
: you asked :). PEACE!
Keep going, it prolly won't get ugly.
--
blah
RNKA...@webtv.net
>floor is open.
:) Cool.
>we have differing opinions on what's Black
>or Brown or Mixed or whatever.
Personally, I feel that "black" is not JUST the color of one's skin.
That's what I was trying to demonstrate with the story of my biracial
cousins (one VERY fair, the other, darker). They both carry their black
father's genes, although one's APPEARANCE belies that fact. Therefore,
if "black" is based solely on appearance, then that would mean, only the
darker of his children could call herself black, and to me, that's not
right. They both came from the same black man, regardless of the color
of their skin, so they are both black.
>Did you think the picture depicted the right
>image? If they painted an
>African-American looking Jesus, and you
>thought this was right, then I assumed you
>thought Jesus was Black. I'm not insisting
>that this is what you thought, I'm just
>showing you how you insinuated that you
>thought he was Black.
I think the picture was a better depiction than what we normally see.
The artist said (and, of course, I'm paraphrasing), even though he
appears, at first glance, to be black, if one looks deeper, he/she will
see many people. I happen to agree with that.
The bible describes Jesus as having hair like wool, and skin the color
of burned brass. This new picture more closely resembles that
description, than the ones we're all used to seeing (blonde and
blue-eyed). Even if this particular picture isn't used, I'd like to see
Christianity use a more historically and geographically correct image of
Jesus (rather than the image of it's rulers).
>How dark? Darker than the Middle
>Easterner's of today? How about the proof
>of this one? (I currently don't have any
>views on this, so I'm not challenging what
>you're saying as I have no counter
>argument, so don't be defensive, I've
>never seen Jesus, just tell me your proof.)
I can't give you absolute proof, because:
>Maybe you should have known that there
>weren't any camera's in Jesus' time
;-) I can, however, offer this:
http://www.surfplaza.com/harmony/section3.html
This will take you to the genealogies of Jesus, as told in the gospels
according to Matthew (Joseph's lineage), and Luke (Mary's lineage).
These family trees are common, until we come to King David (then, Joseph
is from the line of David's son, Solomon, and Mary is from the line of
David's son, Nathan).
I won't list the whole family line (that's why the link is provided),
but let's just touch on a few points.
1) Jesus was descended from the line of David, who was descended from
the line of Abraham, who was descended from the line of Shem, who was
the son of Noah (and the brother of Ham)...and we eventually make it
back to Adam (Genesis 5:1-32).
2) The bible states that God put Adam (man) into the garden of Eden
(Genesis 2:15), and Genesis 2:8-14, tells us where Eden was...
-=<>=-
(starting with verse 10) "And a river went out of Eden to water the
garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The
name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land
of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good:
there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river
is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth
toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."
-=<>=-
Sounds like Africa to me.
3) Now...back to Noah, and his sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. I realize
that it's accepted that black people were descended from Ham (Noah's ONE
black son), who was supposedly cursed, but Genesis 9:25-27 states, "And
he said, Cursed be Canaan...," who was Ham's SON. Anyway...I find it
pretty much unacceptable that a man (Noah), and his wife, who are both
from Eden (Africa), could give birth to 3 sons, who could spawn 3
different races (Shem -- the Semites; Japheth -- Europeans and Northern
Asiatics; and Ham -- Africans [blacks]). But, then again, I also find
it hard to believe that all of civilization was begotten by 2 people
(Adam & Eve), only 6000 years ago...but that's another story.
Does this all mean Jesus was black? Not necessarily. It's a
well-accepted fact that he was a Semite (Jew), and most likely resembled
the Jews of that time, but the fact remains that he was descended from
Africans, lived in various African cities (especially Egypt), and he had
that skin like burned brass. So I'll say, once again, whatever he was,
he SURE wasn't WHITE!
>the assumption was that you're not a
>Christian. Are you?
I grew up in a home with Christian family members, and I spent my school
years in Catholic school. I noticed inconsistencies, and began to
question doctrines, at a young age. The older I get, and the more I
look into various religions, the more inconsistencies I find. So...to
answer your question...I don't know. To a devout Christian, I'm sure
that means, "No," but I can't say "no" for sure, and things I'm
learning, won't let me say, "yes" for sure, either. I guess I'm what
you'd call, "undecided." But I'm working on it :).
BTW...here's a website I came across, called, "Some Reasons Why
Humanists Reject the Bible." Now...before it's even said...I DO NOT
claim to be a humanist...I haven't read enough about their beliefs to
even discuss them, but this site brought up some interesting, verifiable
bible contradictions. Check it out:
http://www.humanist.net/religion/thebible.html
>Maybe you should have known that there
>weren't any camera's in Jesus' time, and
>so people were only going to depict their
>imagination in their art or draw what they
>felt like drawing. You should have also
>known that this imagery should have (had)
>nothing to do with your faith since you're
>not worshipping the picture.
That's one of the inconsistencies of which I speak. The bible is
Christianity's main resource, so if imagery doesn't matter, why aren't
ALL pictures of Jesus historically correct, and reflecting of the
"burned brass" description found within the book of Revelations?
This is because, IMO, many white people would have a hard time
worshipping a "Jesus of color." I hate to say that, but I just really
believe it.
>Keep going, it prolly won't get ugly.
LOL! Ok...I'm gonna hold you to that :)!
Nurse KAT says: If you're interested, you might want to check out "Metu
Neter-Vol.1" by Ra Un Nefer Amen; "Christianity, Islam and the Negro
Race" by Edward Blyden; and "100 Amazing Facts on the African Presence
in the Bible" a Winston-Derek Publishers--Communicators Press Project.
PEACE :)!
Mary
: right. They both came from the same black man, regardless of the color
: of their skin, so they are both black.
Just curious, would you also say they're equally white? They both came
from the same white woman, so they're both white. I'm assuming you would,
but people like me find it easier to just say that the kids are mixed.
Then if you asked me, I'd say they're of European, African,
American-Indian, etc heritages.
: I think the picture was a better depiction than what we normally see.
: The artist said (and, of course, I'm paraphrasing), even though he
: appears, at first glance, to be black, if one looks deeper, he/she will
: see many people. I happen to agree with that.
Lol. One Black person and a few objects from other ethnicities...
: The bible describes Jesus as having hair like wool, and skin the color
: of burned brass. This new picture more closely resembles that
: description, than the ones we're all used to seeing (blonde and
: blue-eyed). Even if this particular picture isn't used, I'd like to see
: Christianity use a more historically and geographically correct image of
: Jesus (rather than the image of it's rulers).
Well, since we'd never get an accurate picture of Jesus till we see him, I
guess peole would only draw what suits them. Also, would you happen to
know when the darker people of Israel moved out and we began to have the
lighter people in that part of the world?
: from Eden (Africa), could give birth to 3 sons, who could spawn 3
: different races (Shem -- the Semites; Japheth -- Europeans and Northern
: Asiatics; and Ham -- Africans [blacks]). But, then again, I also find
*LOL* You should also wonder why everyone isn't Black.
: Africans, lived in various African cities (especially Egypt), and he had
Yeah, he prolly got really sun burned when he went to Egypt, being that he
wasn't from there...
: that skin like burned brass. So I'll say, once again, whatever he was,
: he SURE wasn't WHITE!
This is the best proof I've heard, so far. You know, I've heard really
ridiculous ones before. Like, "The First miracle of Jesus was turning
water into Wine. Just like a Brotha! 'You know, I don't normally do this,
but fill up the jars with water!'" or, "'Jesus and his disciples addressed
one another with Brother-Brother, and that's Black.'" This particular ones
were so off, because I don't know of Africans historically addessing one
another by Brother Brother sister sister, and African-Americans weren't
exactly in the picture until some four centuries ago.
: answer your question...I don't know. To a devout Christian, I'm sure
: that means, "No,"
You got that one right...
: That's one of the inconsistencies of which I speak. The bible is
: Christianity's main resource, so if imagery doesn't matter, why aren't
: ALL pictures of Jesus historically correct, and reflecting of the
: "burned brass" description found within the book of Revelations?
You just said it yourself; imagery shouldn't matter. But if the newer
pictues pleases you, it's all good.
: This is because, IMO, many white people would have a hard time
: worshipping a "Jesus of color." I hate to say that, but I just really
: believe it.
Silly me. And I thought this was about your not liking the old pictures,
not White people's not liking what it's -supposed- to be. Either way,
intersting discussion. :)
--
blah