To many Western Christians, icons are thought of as being simply "Eastern religious paintings". But that is not how the Church has taught. "Portraying Jesus as George Floyd" may be okay for a symbolic painting, but never for an icon.

And here is why: https://twitter.com/KeytarCatholic/status/1277653652602269696

In the West, artistic appeals to make Jesus take on many forms (George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, an American patriot, a queer woman) usually claim the principle of the Incarnation & "inculturation." In other words, because God became flesh in Jesus Christ, "Jesus is everyone".

And, while inculturation may have its place in various dimensions of Church life, icons are not the place for artistic creativity & innovation, because the Church's theology of icons, as forcefully expressed at the Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)

According to Nicaea II, icons are not simply representations but *re*-presentations. In other words, the icon is not a symbolic painting, but instead is deeply connected to the person's localized and actual, specific flesh.

The Word became flesh, but not just any flesh.

Ironically, it was the Gnostics and their writings which taught that, because Christ's flesh was merely an appearance, it can take on any form (an old man, a random child, a tree) because there was no intrinsic connection between Christ's substance & His flesh.

Orthodox Christians believe that every human person is made in the image & likeness of God. When you see the face of another person, you do, in a sense, see the face of Christ. But in terms of worship, Christians cannot worship the face of a man, but only the God-Man Himself.

Icons are not decoration. They are meant for veneration. I cannot judge the state of George Floyd's soul, nor can I deny his death as senseless & unjust. But nothing about his life or death suggests that he become an object of religious devotion, a saint, or a martyr.

Matthew 25 does not give Christians license to portray Jesus as George Floyd in an icon any more than Jesus eating fish (Lk 24:41-43) gives Christians license to use fish (or rice, yuca, etc.) as a substitute for wheat bread in the Eucharist.

Incarnation ≠ innovation

In short, one can use Matthew 25 to speak against those who suffer from racism & police brutality, but it does not give a defense of replacing Christ with Floyd.

We'd all do well to understand the Church's theology of icons, and what is/is not acceptable for icon veneration.

For more information, check out this fantastic essay by John Panteleimon Manoussakis, as well
Leonid Ouspensky's "Theology of the Icon", & Chapter 3 of Jaroslav Pelikan's book, "The Spirit of Eastern Christendom". https://www.academia.edu/30974026/From_Economy_to_Iconomy_The_Legacy_of_Nicaea_II