Back in 1992, when I was a seminarian, I was sent to Mexico. While visiting a monastery, I saw a replica of Rublev’s Icon of the Trinity on the wall. The priest said that you really are not supposed to present the Trinity as three individuals. However, the early missionaries used the icon to help the native people in their efforts to grasp the Trinity.

Is it appropriate to present the Trinity as three individuals?

In a quandary,

Ike O’Nagrafee

This is a more complicated question than one would at first imagine. (Aren’t they all?) Before answering it, one must know something about iconoclasm.  

In 726 AD the Byzantine Emperor, Leo III, noticed that the Muslims were kicking Byzantine Christian dignity all over the field of battle. He decided that the Muslims were winning because they obeyed the Old Testament prohibition of images (called “icons” in Greek). He called a synod that forbad religious images.

In 730, the Pope in Rome, Gregory III, wrote a letter saying he was nuts and shouldn’t be meddling in theology anyway. St. John of Damascus weighed in by writing his  “Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images” (Believe me, a real page turner!) St John lived in Muslim territories and worked for the Caliph. He thought he was beyond the reach of the Emperor in Constantinople. Boy, was he wrong! The Emperor Leo got him fired and there is some business about his hand being cut off and miraculously restored. At any rate, he ended up in a monastery near Jerusalem and lived happily ever after.

In his “Apologia”, St. John makes the point that images were forbidden to the Old Testament Hebrews because of their proneness to idolatry. God actually commanded the making of certain images, such as the cherubim in the temple and on the ark and even the bronze serpent, so it is clear from the context of Scripture, that images are not forbidden. Only the images of gods that could lead to idolatry are forbidden.

The saints are not gods and we Christians don’t worship images even if they do depict Christ. They are only reminders of mysteries we contemplate. 

Here is the central argument: Jesus is God made visible, and Mary and the saints are His army. They are visible. Before the Incarnation of God in Christ, God was not visible, and thus could not be depicted visibly. In Jesus, God has become visible, and thus images have been made legitimate.

This is the big enchilada in the pro-image camp. If God is made visible in Jesus, Jesus can be depicted in art, and the Holy Spirit who appeared as a dove can even be depicted. Some, however, draw the line there, saying that the Father, who has never been made visible cannot be depicted in art. Thus, the Trinity which must include the Father, cannot be depicted. One must however remember that at the last supper Jesus said that, “He who sees me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9) so even the Father is, in some sense, visible. There are still lots of folks who think that the Trinity cannot be depicted because of the continuing invisibility of the Father (which I have just handily refuted.) Some will go as far, but no farther, as hinting at the Trinity by drawing a representation of Abraham’s three heavenly guests (Genesis, chapter 18) in whom the early Christian authors saw an Old Testament reference to the Trinity. The most famous such depiction is the Rublev icon to which you refer. Others say even these hints are wrong. This, in my opinion, is a residual iconoclasm.

Where does that leave us?

The Second Council of Nicea pretty much settled the issue. This council was presided over by the Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople and the legate of Pope Adrian I, so it was absolutely kosher. The council held that icons, or images, were inextricably linked to the spread of the Gospel and to the confirmation that these thing were historical realities. When art is instructive and  helpful to prayer, fine, When it passes the line and becomes superstition, not fine.

We are incarnate beings and God has given us eyes and ears, and hands and noses and taste buds. In the Christian life, we use all five senses to perceive the divine presence and to relate to the Communion of Saints. We taste His flesh and blood in the form of bread and wine. It is as if we smell the presence of the Holy Spirit in the sweet incense. We feel the nearness of the kingdom of God in holy relics and the veneration of the Cross, and in the telling of rosary beads and even in the kissing of the altar or the Bible. We hear the gospel proclaimed in word and in song, and we see the invisible mysteries of heaven in the images of our Lord and His saints, though we do not worship them. We are only invited into these great mysteries by these visible and sensible reminders. More would be idolatry, less would be neglect of the gifts of God.

God is love. The Trinity is the oneness of God into which we are adopted, as if into a family. Why should we not represent that lesson of love in a way that is understandable to simple souls like yours and mine? The snobbery of iconoclasm misses the point, even when it forbids this one  form of the icon.  

There is a far worse kind of idolatry than even that prohibited by the iconoclast. “You shall not make for yourself an idol..... of anything that is on the earth.” (Exodus 7:26) People who would never consent to having a religious image in their homes, create a god who is made in their own image. You’ve heard people say “I could never believe in a god who could permit.....  the holocaust....  cruelty to animals....  oppression of women.....  all that smiting in the Old  Testament........ etc.....  etc.... (fill in your own complaint here.) Remember: God has this problem, He thinks He’s God!

There are idolatries in our life that we never suspect. We may condemn some pious little old grandma who has her favorite statue of the Blessed Mother, while at the same time we make an idol of our own opinions. She may be the very picture of Love, caring for her family and for the needs of other, while we pride ourselves on our theological sophistication. Who is the idolater?

Yours as always,

Rev. Know-It-All