So we ran into this painting of Jesus which apart from scaring us a bit, raises what I think a few questions worthwhile considering.
To the Orthodox the painting would obviously not qualify as an icon. But precisely why not? As one commenter aptly wrote, "'Decorative Jesus' can look like anything you want; it's only when you have to kiss an image that it gets personal." Very well. So it is suggested we look to Tradition to guide us, just as in theology, toward that which is believed to be true, right and faithful. (as an aside, would it not be harder to judge an image (icon) to be orthodox than it would doctrine?). Another commenter mentioned (I am paraphrasing) that individual opinion thus doesn't play a role in the church, that the church is a collective of sorts. Is that an accurate way to describe the issue? Do our opinions not count? Are our persons absorbed into a collective?
Icons and in particular icons of Christ are not new to controversy. What is it that an Icon of Christ depicts - does it depict Christ 's humanity, or Christ's divinity? We can't describe His divinity (which by definition is uncontainable and indescribable), nor His humanity apart from His divinity - the two natures are inseparable, Christian theology is quite clear about that. Also, why is it that the Orthodox church decided that as far as depicting Christ, symbolism (such as a lamb) is not acceptable? Whatever the answers, one thing is clear, the meaning and justification for icons is closely related to theology.
So, back to the present painting purporting to depict Christ. Besides not being to our particular taste, what's wrong with it?