Iconoclasm is the destruction of things (often held sacred or precious), persons or even ideas. What is an icon? Millennials would be familiar with the icons (symbols) on their mobile phones, laptops or computers. Originally, an icon was usually a religious symbol, object or painting, often from the Byzantine Empire. For example, the popular picture of the Perpetual Succour is a beautiful example of Byzantine art.
Is there any justification then for iconoclasm? The best known iconoclast was Jesus himself; of whom it was said, “I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days, I will build another, not made with hands” (Mk 14:58). Such an emphatic statement would send shock waves through its listeners. It did, contributing to his death. Surely the Temple was ancient, beautiful and sacred. There was every reason to preserve and perpetuate it. Yet Jesus thought, spoke and acted differently.
This iconoclasm is also seen at the beginning of his public ministry, in the Sermon on the Mount (cf Mat 5:3-7:29). Here again he was destroying beliefs held sacred for 13 centuries, from the time of Moses. They included anger, revenge, adultery and divorce. Jesus was upsetting the apple cart. As a consequence he was inviting trouble for himself; particularly from the deeply entrenched religious fundamentalists. They were epitomised by the Pharisees whom he likened to whitened sepulchres, filled with the stench of death (cf Mat 23:27).
This article was partly inspired by the readings of Sunday 14th September. (Something good does happen when we go to Church on Sundays)! Jesus says, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (Jn 3:14).
The reference/ context is found in the first reading of the day, from the Book of Numbers (21:4-9). This was because the Israelites had begun murmuring against God in the desert. As a punishment God sent fiery serpents among them. The wayward Israelites then pleaded with Moses, so God instructed him to place a bronze serpent upon a p[ole. Those bitten by venomous snakes were to gaze at the bronze serpent and saved from the deadly poison. This was the late Bronze Age (1550-1250 BC). Interestingly, the symbol of the WHO is a serpent on a pole.
The Bronze Serpent was a sacred icon. Yet it had to be destroyed because the Israelites had gone off on a tangent. From an icon it had become an idol, in itself a divine object. They called it Nehushtan, worshipping it with incense. Hence circa 700 BC, after 550 years, King Hezekiah of Judah had it broken into pieces (cf 2 Kings 18:4). There is an important lesson here; be it the Temple or the Bronze Serpent. At times a sacred and good thing outlives its utility, becoming counter-productive; when it becomes an end in itself, instead of being a means to an end. The icon becomes an idol. It therefore requires an iconoclast, be it King Hezekiah or Jesus himself.
In today’s political, social and religious life, are we too prone to converting living icons into inert idols? Take politics. Both in India and the USA we have leaders who have through subtlety, media manipulation and misuse of religion, painted themselves into larger than life figures. Earlier we heard that Indira was India. Now we have a non-biological leader. Does that mean that he is without beginning or end? Has he become an idol to be worshipped, immaculate, without blemish? In that eventuality we should use Mahua Moitra’s idiom that heads must roll.
What of the USA? Trump has already carved himself into an object of worship, surrounded as he is by sycophants. More interesting is the case of his protégé, Charlie Kirk, who very sadly, was assassinated recently. He was an icon for right-wing, conservative, pseudo-Christian youth. The Hindustan Times (14th September) described him as one whose “rhetorical gifts for countering progressive ideas by inflaming cultural tensions and making provocative declarations instantly resonated with college audiences”.
Other media reports stated that Kirk spoke out against Indian migrants snatching American jobs. He accused Black men of abandoning their wives after impregnating them. He believed that women were meant for childbirth and not for pursuing careers. He supported the genocide in Gaza, as also the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution giving citizens unfettered rights to bear arms. Ironically, he was talking about just that when he was shot.
Some Christians, including myopic Catholic bishops, hailed his anti-abortion (pro-life) stand. The question arises; can genocide in Gaza or the killing of school children be called pro-life? Two more children were gunned down in the USA the very same day as Kirk. That did not make news. School children were dispensable. Kirk was not, because he was part of Trump’s fallacious and grandiose narrative.
Shortly after his death I saw his wife Erika on TV. Through gritted teeth she said, “You have no idea what you have just unleashed”. Her tone was menacing. Yet many in the Christian Right considered Kirk a Christian youth icon.
The iconoclast then struck with a single shot from a bolt action rifle on a rooftop 200 metres away. It was a fatal one to his neck. In no way do I condone the actions of the assassin.
But as a former shooter myself (I was 5th in U.P. in 1969) I have many doubts about the assassination narrative. I too used a bolt action, single shot Winchester .22 rifle. Hitting a target at 200 metres with a single shot bolt action rifle would have required immense skill and practice. It would have required telescopic sights, a tripod and a long barrel, as used by trained snipers. It could not have been pulled off alone.
It defies logic why an assassin would use such a rifle without a magazine. Was he so confident of success? Besides, the neck is too small a target. An assassin would mare likely pump bullets into the chest before the victim fell. What if the first shot missed, as in the Day of the Jackal? The assassin would have had no time to reload or re-aim his rifle. When shooting downwards the force of gravity would drag the bullet down. It doesn’t add up.
As with the 1963 assassination of John Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald I think that there is much more to it than meets the eye. Will Kash Patel’s FBI unveil the truth? Was Kirk an icon that had morphed into an idol that needed the head to roll? Will the truth ever emerge? Will the real iconoclast, assassin and rifle remain in the shadows?
TV images of the alleged assassin jumping down and running away had no visuals of the rifle and other equipment. How could he hide the rifle in some bushes when he had not taken it with him and why would he message someone to recover the rifle wrapped in a towel? There are too many unanswered questions.
What about modern iconoclasts like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Rev Martin Luther King Jr? In the world of music and culture too we have iconoclasts who sought to demolish the icons of their times – the hippies and Beatles among them.
In the religious field too there are icons that may be bordering on idols – becoming an end in themselves; like novenas and pilgrimages that are far removed from their original goals. The latest example is of a church in Kerala acquiring a strand of hair of the recently canonised St Carlo Acutis. Do we need a strand of hair to increase our faith?
The more that we reflect on the life of Jesus we realize that he was a non-conformist and anti-establishment. It could be summed up in his saying “The Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27). Trump, who claims to be a Christian despite his many wives, crimes and lies, would probably call Jesus a Left Lunatic. In India he could be labelled an Urban Naxal.
Ultimately Christians are invited to distinguish between icons that lead us to greater heights and idols that take us off on a tangent. Jesus invites us to walk the narrow path (cf Mat 7:13), even if it makes us iconoclasts. Incidentally, in the Foreword to my book “An Unfinished Symphony” in 2011 George Menezes did label me an iconoclast.
Leave a Reply