|
Introduction
The Problem
OT Texts
The Theodicy of the
Book of Job
The Recourse to
Cultural Relativism
A Catholic Response 1
A Catholic Response 2
Back to Hebrews 11
Conclusions
Home
|
Introduction
At the annual conference of the
Catholic Theological Association of Great Britain held in September 2002 at the College of The
Trinity and All Saints of the University of Leeds Brian Wicker presented a
paper entitled “Samson Terroristes. A Theological Reflection on Suicidal
Terrorism”[1]
Three things
in particular interested me very much about this paper. It brought
attention to terrorism carried out in the name of religion, which together
with its corollaries, religious fanaticism and intolerance, is dragging the
reputation of religion into the gutter. The second thing was that in the
light of Hebrews 11.32-34 Brian’s treatment of the Samson story, as I see
it, raises serious questions about the Bible as divine revelation. Thirdly,
the god described time and time again in the Old Testament is one who
commands the murder of the innocent. It is however our faith that the God
of the Old Testament is the God of the New. So what sort of people are we?
What sort of god is our god? What
sort of religion is ours? I can
hardly think of more serious theological questions to address.
Two other issues of equal
magnitude are involved in that task. What in Catholic and Orthodox
Christianity constitutes revelation as distinct from how it is understood
in, let’s call it traditional and evangelical, Protestantism; and,
interestingly, in Islam? And, though this second theme is inseparable ‘in
re’ if not ‘in intellectu’ from the former, where does revelation reside?
Where is it ‘deposited’? In Christ? Or in a book? What are we essentially?
‘People of the book’ as Mohammed describes in the Koran (2.104 & 5.58) or the body of
Christ? (Eph. 1. 23)?[2]
Brian’s opinion of Samson as
in his paper is that he was “a
suicidal terrorist”, a “suicidal murderer”, “the proto-suicidal terrorist”,
“a suicidal terrorist hitman” and “a cross between Beowulf and Batman”.
The Old Testament saga of Samson, he says, is “a collection of tall and pretty nasty stories bound together by a
thirst for endless violence”.
This lurid opinion of Samson is not that of the Bible of course, which
Brian acknowledges of course: “The
narrator of Judges regards him as a specially blessed instrument of the
divine purpose. So does the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews (chap.
11.32-34). So too do St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas”. Judges attributes
“each of his exploits to the Spirit
of Yahweh that seizes him at the key moment”; and Judges sees
nothing wrong in what Samson because he did what he did in the interests of
Israel. The New Testament,
which is the Word of God, in Hebrews 11.32-34 includes him in its list of
OT men and women of faith from Abel down to the prophets who “through faith
overthrew kingdoms, established justice and saw God’s promises fulfilled”
(v.33). It would seem Brian repudiates this biblical opinion of Samson. “We don’t have to take Samson seriously
as the letter to the Hebrews did”. A fortiori the Book of Judges. “It seems amazing in this day and age
that anyone should have supposed that this saga was anything but a
collection of tall and pretty nasty stories bound together by a thirst for
endless violence. Yet scholars from St. Augustine to Milton took it at face
value. To them an historical person, Samson, was blessed by God with a
power with which to further the divine plan of salvation. The letter to the
Hebrews says as much”. Augustine and Aquinas, Brian says, got
themselves in great difficulties trying, for example, to reconcile Samson’s
suicide with the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’. “Such questions can only arise if we take the Samson story to be true
(Brian’s emphasis) in some sense”. He does not explain in what sense, if any, the story can be taken
as true but by pronouncing the whole Samson saga “a collection of tall stories”, he is obviously saying it is
historical nonsense. Hence it “should
not be taken seriously”. This then spares us any compulsion, such as
Augustine and Aquinas felt, to devise ways and means of reconciling
Samson’s killing of three thousand spectators in the stadium with our
Christian ethic. Instead it’s high time we started doing the very opposite
and expose it for what it really is, “the
intentional killing of the innocent....one of the most blatant examples of
evil anyone can think of”.[3]
Brian begins his paper as he ends it, by
placing one almighty question mark against the Biblical representation of
Samson. His statement bears repetition: “the
intentional killing of the innocent...must be one of the most blatant
examples of evil anyone can think of....Yet even this is not so
unambiguously evil that people cannot find religious justifications for
it”. He takes us through the Samson story as told in Judges 13-17. He
discusses the reference to Samson in the letter to the Hebrews and the
problems Samson created for Augustine and Aquinas. He proceeds to describe
the different ways in which Samson is portrayed in Milton’s ‘Samson
Agonistes’ and in the music of Handel and Saint-Saens. He concludes by
presenting us with a problem -“the
problem of those innocent civilians on the roof of the Philistine
stadium...out for a jolly day in the sunshine” and killed when Samson
brought the roof down. The book of Judges, he observes, is “untroubled by their slaughter”.
Brian proposes that if anyone discusses the Samson legend today “he or she had better put the rights of
the Philistine crowd at the centre of the action”. That, as I read him,
is the main point he wishes to get across –that any form of religion which
advocates violence on behalf of God and which involves the slaughter of the
innocent, has got religion fundamentally wrong. With that he concludes his
paper. Now, which of us would disagree with him? I wouldn’t for one.
| Home | Next>
|