Martyrdom and Identity: The Self on Trial

Martyrdom and Identity This page intentionally left blank Martyrdom and Identity The Self on Trial Michael P. Jens...

127 downloads 1075 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Martyrdom and Identity

This page intentionally left blank

Martyrdom and Identity The Self on Trial

Michael P. Jensen

Published by T&T Clark International A Continuum Imprint The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Copyright © Michael P. Jensen, 2010 Michael P. Jensen has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identiﬁed as the Author of this work. ISBN 978-0-567-52628-1 (hardback) British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Pindar NZ, Auckland, New Zealand Printed and bound in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group

For Catherine

Ouvk evpi. to.n qa,naton avll’ evpi, th.n zwh,nÅ Pionius, presbyter and martyr

Contents

1

Preface

ix

Introduction

1

A ‘I wish to be what I am’

1

B Martyrdom and Christian identity – the basis of the link

3

C ‘Identity’ and ‘The self’

2

3

7

D The work in outline

11

‘What kind of idea are you?’ Martyrdom and identity in Charles Taylor and in Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses

17

A Introduction

17

B Charles Taylor and authenticity i. Introduction: authenticity as a theme ii. The three malaises iii. Retrieving authenticity iv. A culture in tension v. What remains of authenticity? vi. Evaluation

18 18 19 20 22 23 24

C Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses i. ‘Identity politics’ and religion: what kind of idea are you? ii. The unstable self and the unstable deity iii. Victimhood as identity iv. The ‘open’ identity v. The problem of martyrdom and identity vi. The knowledge of good and evil vii. An authentic way to die? viii. Evaluation: Rushdie and martyrdom

26 27 29 30 32 33 34 35 36

D Conclusion

39

The ﬁrst temptation: the temptation to security and the risk of martyrdom

41

A Introduction

41

4

5

B Scripture and the martyrs

42

C The ﬁrst temptation i. The pleasing past ii. The promise of return iii. The security of ease

46 46 47 48

D Martha C. Nussbaum, the Greeks and luck

49

E The martyr and the ‘good’ life i. Preliminaries ii. ‘Forgetting what lies behind’ a. Life on the way b. Augustine, memory and desire iii. Ease and pleasure iv. Security and safety

52 52 53 53 59 63 65

F The martyr looking forward

72

The second temptation: the temptation to collaborate and the mission of the martyrs

75

A Introduction

75

B The second temptation i. The return to glory? ii. A ‘certain submission’ iii. The assertion of the keys

76 76 77 78

C Richard Rorty and pragmatism

79

D The martyr, power and authority i. Addressing the question ii. Responding to the peace iii. The power of the keys

82 82 83 90

E Suffering and hoping witness: the mission and the martyr

95

The third temptation: the temptation to idealism and martyrdom as passive action

99

A Introduction

99

B The third temptation i. Deﬁance of the crown ii. Friendship iii. Time iv. England v. Action

99 99 101 101 102 102

C Roger Scruton, T. S. Eliot and patriotic tradition

103

D The martyr, patriotism and action i. Preliminaries ii. Loyal resistance iii. Time

107 107 107 112

iv. v. vi.

Friendship England and Englishness Passive action?

E The responsibility of martyrdom 6

7

8

115 120 123 128

The fourth temptation: the temptation of honour and reward, and martyrdom as renunciation

131

A Introduction

131

B The fourth temptation i. The power to bind ii. The martyr’s earthly glory iii. No enduring crown?

132 132 133 134

C The ethics of honour and the theology of heavenly rewards i. Honour ii. Heavenly rewards a. EXCURSUS: Martyrdom in Islam and heavenly rewards

135 135 140 140

D Honour, glory and martyrdom i. Honour and fame and the verdict of history ii. The self-proclaimed martyr: forcing God’s hand

143 143 152

E The renunciation of honour

156

‘Who killed the Archbishop?’ Martyrdom, temptation and providence

159

A Introduction

159

B Who killed the Archbishop?

161

C Trials and temptations a. EXCURSUS: Irenaeus of Lyon and the temptations of Christ

165

D Temptation and providentia dei

173

E Martyrdom, temptation and providence

179

172

Martyrdom and the self in review

183

A Introduction

183

B A review of Murder in the Cathedral in production

183

C In review

190

D Conclusion

196

Bibliography

197

Name Index

206

Scripture Index

209

Subject Index

213

Preface

My interest in the topic of human identity – and the thought that Christian martyrdom might have some bearing on it – was provoked in the ﬁrst instance by my daily encounters with the teenage sceptics who inhabited the classrooms of St Andrew’s Cathedral School in Sydney, Australia, where I was School Chaplain from 2000 to 2003. They were adamant that they were not going to accept a thin gruel of moralism from me as an alternative to the freedom to choose who to be on their own terms. Clearly, different ways of being a self were at issue. Thanks are due to them for not allowing their resident theologian to be happy with the glib answers that came immediately to mind. I have been richly blessed by having, in Professor Oliver O’Donovan and Dr Bernd Wannenwetsch and, more latterly, Professor Nigel Biggar, teachers of the ﬁnest calibre in the ﬁeld of moral theology. As markers, Professor Biggar and Dr Alistair McFadyen provided perceptive and searching comment. I am grateful in particular for the direction and stimulus given by my supervisor, Dr Wannenwetsch, throughout the writing of the project; and for his scholarly and personal example. I would not have been able to consider coming to Oxford at all if it had not been for the remarkable generosity of Mr Vanda Gould. In addition, he has been a source of prayerful encouragement and pastoral care to the whole family in his regular visits, emails and phone calls. I would like also to thank the Trustees of the Joan Augusta Mackenzie Travelling Scholarship, and the Principal, Bursar and Council of Moore Theological College, Sydney, for the Roberts Prize and other discretionary funds that were made available to us during our time in the UK. We have been truly blessed in this regard. Friends new and old have been an integral part of the mostly solitary experience of writing a thesis. In particular, Kosta Milkov, Christopher Barnett and Guido de Graaff have been magniﬁcent fellow travellers, along with Russ Dawn, Jonathan Brant, Matheson Russell and Charles Byrd. Laurence Emmett read a full draft. Reading new theological texts with the members of OXCAT on Friday afternoons has kept me going; and it was a joy to rediscover Calvin and more with Sam Allberry. We will never forget the welcome and support of the staff and members of St Ebbe’s Church of England. Justin Moffatt and David Höhne kept chivvying me along; Alan Lukabyo and Stephen Jacobs kept writing real letters, on actual paper. Bec Watson and Karen Beilharz sent Campos coffee beans. My sister, Anna Cox, and her husband, Matthew, brought me a new computer when the old one died. There were people I hardly

x

PREFACE

know who stopped by my blog to give me helpful advice or pointed me to an overlooked reference. My parents-in-law, Richard and Jackie Wallder, did not live to see the end of this project, though they were instrumental in it coming to pass. We miss them. To my own parents I owe an inestimable debt of gratitude. My mother, Christine Jensen, made more than one trip from Australia to keep us all going. My father, Peter Jensen, has read and reread my work, often telling me what it was that I was trying to say when it had become unclear even to me. I don’t know what I would have done without him. These years, though not without trials, have been happy ones for a young family. The joy of my life continues to be that I share it with my four intriguing and wonderful children – Simon, Sacha, Matilda and (our very own English rose) – Freya – and with Catherine, who bore the load more than anyone, and to whom this present work is dedicated, with love. Thanks are due to Faber & Faber Ltd for permission to quote extensively from Murder in the Cathedral by T. S. Eliot. MPJ

1

Introduction

A

‘I wish to be what I am’

On 17 July AD 180, a small group of Christians, named in the extant record as Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donatus, Secunda and Vestia, were brought to the council-chamber at Carthage to stand trial before the proconsul, Saturninus. They were to become known as the Scillitan martyrs. The dialogue that has been recorded for posterity is not much more than an ofﬁcial court report.1 Saturninus comes across as a reluctant persecutor bewildered by the obstinacy of the Christians. He begins the interrogation by suggesting to the group that – ‘if you return to a right mind’ – the imperial favour is still available. For the Roman ofﬁcial, the deﬁance of this little group, when given a clear choice for freedom, is evidence not so much of sedition as of unsound mind. The Christians in their turn insist on their innocence of any crime and even cite their exemplary citizenship; however, Speratus shows that a higher loyalty was at issue for the Christians: ‘I do not recognize the empire of this world; but rather I serve that God, whom no man has seen, nor can see with these eyes.’2 They will not swear by the genius of the Emperor. They claim for themselves a different allegiance – in fact, a different identity: Vestia said: ‘I am a Christian.’ Secunda said: ‘I wish to be what I am.’3

1 As per Owen’s description. (E. C. E. Owen, Some Authentic Acts of the Early Martyrs (London: SPCK, 1933), p. 71.) 2 ‘The acts of the Scillitan martyrs’, VI, in Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Clarendon, spec. edn, 2000), p. 87. 3 Ibid., IX, p. 89. 1

2

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

They reject even an offer of 30 days’ reprieve to ‘think it over’. They repeat ‘I am a Christian’ – this statement is apparently enough to explain their willingness to face execution rather than sacriﬁce to Caesar. Finally, the whole group is condemned to die at the point of the sword. At the reading out of the verdict they all shout ‘[T]hanks be to God!’ In this sparse account we see the great disparity between the two views of the world that have here collided. The Roman governor is by no means demonised in the report: he acts, if anything, with the utmost restraint and civility. Neither is he an object of derision from the anonymous martyrologist. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Christians see themselves as subjects of another Lord and so as inhabitants of another realm, a realm that encompasses the one in which Saturninus operates. It is Secunda’s testimony that draws attention: ‘I wish to be what I am.’ It is not merely her allegiance to God, but her very self-understanding that draws her to this point. She can do no other than accept the verdict of Saturninus because she construes her own self in this way – as a Christian; that is, as a follower and imitator of Christ. Two different and at this point rival understandings of what it is to be a self are here in evidence. Though both have notions of transcendence, allegiance to authority and membership of community, it is possible neither for the Roman to acquit the Christian nor for the Christian to say she is other than what she is. This dissonance is not merely an ancient one. The association of martyrdom with fanaticism, religious violence and the spectacle of suffering complicates discussion about the meaning of martyrdom as a narration of the self. It is a problematic and contested discourse – perhaps supremely so. Part of this dissonance lies in the inevitable association of martyrdom with the spectacles of horrendous religious violence that are the signs of our times. As the suicide bomber shows, the line between killing and dying for a cause is all too thin. As it seemed to the Romans, so today: martyrdom is the domain of the unreasoning fanatic.4 How, then, might a discourse characterized by the notion of the ‘authentic’ self (for example) accommodate the possibility of self-abnegation to the kind and degree that the martyr demonstrates? It seems that it is difﬁcult: a life in which the possibility of martyrdom has been accepted is not a life that appears to be lived to its greatest potential. It is perhaps freely determined (though only as a form of suicide), but it is given away too cheaply; it has too little regard for the ties of family and friends; it is too committed to a notion of ‘truth’ which has fallen into disrepair. It is held to be too passive and too tragic. What kind of self is the Christian, as it is to be discovered in Christian martyrdom? Confessing ‘I am a Christian’, as the martyrs have done, is also a refusal to accept alternative ways of ﬁnding and describing one’s self by means of (for example) security, pleasure, power, action, nationhood, ethnicity or

4 For example: in his article on contemporary religious violence, David Brooks simply equates martyrdom with suicide bombing. But then, to be fair, he is only reﬂecting the rhetoric of martyrdom which has been deployed by the perpetrators of such acts. (David Brooks, ‘The culture of martyrdom’, Atlantic Monthly, 289(6), pp. 18–20). For a sophisticated analysis of this rhetoric, see Talal Asad (On Suicide Bombing (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007).

INTRODUCTION

3

honour. Instead, Christian discipleship means giving one’s self over to a divine designation, even if that means suffering and death. In the face of the trials and temptations that are an inevitable part of human experience, it is an offering of one’s self up to the providence of God as it is evidenced in the life, death, resurrection and promised return of Jesus Christ. For the Christian, therefore, human purpose and identity are fulﬁlled – and vindication received – in discipleship, even if discipleship results in martyrdom. This then stands as a question mark against other forms of self-identifying.

B

Martyrdom and Christian identity – the basis of the link

Christian martyrdom is merely the working out, in a particular circumstance, of the identity in which individual Christians participate. It is not that every Christian is a martyr, in the literal sense; nor is martyrdom the only way to attain salvation. That some Christians are martyred reveals that life and identity are at issue in all Christian discipleship.5 Christianity has at its heart a saviour who was unjustly tried and executed by the ruling religious and legal powers. The prominence of martyrs in the early years of the church’s life, following the impact of the death of Christ, is not then at all surprising. While the case could be made that Christianity inherited pagan6 or Jewish7 (or both) patterns of honourable dying – and the Fathers deﬁnitely made use of pagan and Jewish exemplars in connection with Christian martyrdoms – it is also the case that in Christianity the status and signiﬁcance of martyrdom was sui generis. Daniel Boyarin, noting the differences between Jewish and Christian martyrs of antiquity, writes: ‘[F]or Christians, it [martyrdom] is the declaration of the essence of self: I am a Christian.’8 Martyrdom in Christianity was something obviously very close to the self-identiﬁcation of Christians in a way that was without precedent or parallel – because of the nature of the death of the saviour.9 The New Testament (NT) documents are texts in part generated by the experience of persecution. In the NT, the word ma,rturion, meaning ‘witness’

5 This thought is strongly asserted by Chris K. Huebner (A Precarious Peace: Yoderian Explorations on Theology, Knowledge and Identity (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2006)). Also see Craig Hovey, To Share in the Body: A Theology of Martyrdom for Today’s Church (Michigan: Brazos, 2008). 6 G. W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 7 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conﬂict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Oxford: Blackwell,1965). See also John S. Pobee, Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul (Shefﬁeld: JSOT Press, 1985). 8 Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999). 9 This point will become crucial in the light of the attacks against religious martyrdom (exempliﬁed, in this book, by Salman Rushdie) which tend not to make a distinction between the meanings such martyrdoms have for different faiths.

4

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

or ‘testimony’ in the legal sense, had not yet acquired ‘martyrdom’ as its primary meaning. Trites offers a ﬁve-stage analysis of the lexical development of the ma,rtur- word group from its simple courtroom usage through to ‘martyrdom’ in the literature of the second century, concluding that the process of semantic change was certainly well under way within the texts of the NT.10 In other words, already in the apostolic era and just after, death and suffering were in the process of becoming bound together with the concept of witness. In addition, as Dragas explains, this lexicographical development was only a recognition of a signiﬁcance already there.11 The juridical context of the term suggests some truth to which the martyr testiﬁes – in the case of the NT, the evangelical truth concerning Jesus the Messiah. In Luke 24.48 and in Acts 1.8 for example, Jesus designates as ma,rturej those of his disciples who will bear witness to his death and resurrection. This is the story of the Christ; and here are the witnesses to that series of events. In the recollection of Jesus’s words in Acts 1.8, the early Christian community showed that they understood the context of witness to extend far beyond the courtroom. Ma,rturion was linked not merely to the task of defending the honour and innocence of Christ in court, but also to the missionary task of proclaiming the gospel. Both contexts (courtroom and missionary) are concerned with speech in public and require the response by hearers of evaluation and judgement. It is with Paul that the notion of witness becomes linked not only to the facts as such but also to the personal transformation wrought by an encounter with the risen Jesus himself. The story of Paul’s conversion, as he is depicted narrating it in Acts 22, results in him being commissioned as a ma,rtuj to the Gentiles. Not only does the revelation of the divine truth to Paul transform him; it also results in his impulsion to witness to others as a matter of sheer conviction.12 What now comes into view is confession of the truth – the truth about reality as it has been revealed in Christ, but also the truth about the confessor and his or her very identity with regards to that truth. There is nothing neutral or unbiased about witness in this sense. As Craig A. Slane writes: ‘[I]f confession discloses the identity of self, we might consider Christian confession to be the disclosure of one’s self in proximity to Christ.’13 In the light of that which it confesses, witness becomes the confession of one’s own commitments and identity. 10 Allison A. Trites, ‘Ma,rtuj and martyrdom in the apocalypse: A semantic study’, Novum Testamentum, 15(1) (1973), pp. 72–80. 11 George Dragas, ‘Martyrdom and orthodoxy in the New Testament era – the theme of Ma,rturia as witness to the truth’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 30(3) (1985), p. 293. 12 The signiﬁcance of Paul’s conversion is a major debate in Pauline studies. Kim in particular links Paul’s mission to his Damascus road experience. (Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr, 2nd edn, 1984).) More latterly, see the essays in Richard N. Longenecker, The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997). 13 Craig A. Slane, Bonhoeffer as Martyr: Social Responsibility and Modern Christian Commitment (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2004), p. 41.

INTRODUCTION

5

From the NT point of view there is no doubt of the potential for conﬂict with the world, the ﬂesh and the Devil implicit in this confession. This is always and already inbuilt into the narrative of Christ himself – a priori the confession prophesies its own rejection. If believers in Christ are to imitate him, then that implies following him to the extent of dying the death he died – or, at least, that one’s suffering and potential death are to be understood as echoing Christ’s. Paul continually reads his own sufferings as an apostle in this way (e.g. 2 Cor. 4.8-10). Suffering for Christ is inextricably bound to witnessing for Christ – and vice versa – as far as Paul is concerned. The death of Stephen is a heuristic moment for the Christian understanding of martyrdom. He is, as Slane points out, a martyr because he is a witness to Christ as he preaches his tendentious and courageous rendition of Israel’s history, rather than because he dies per se.14 Which to say, violent death is the consequence of his witness rather than the content of it. He testiﬁes to the providential power of God at work in history – and particularly to that work as it is consummated in the death and resurrection of Christ. Luke clearly wants his readers to observe the parallels between Jesus and Stephen in their deaths: he prays, as Jesus prays, ‘receive my spirit’, and asks for forgiveness for his enemies (Acts 7.58-60).15 Stephen consciously echoes the manner of death of the ﬁgure whom he considers central to Israel’s history. For its part, John’s gospel makes much of the sham trial at which Jesus was convicted as a kind of ironic antitype of the real eschatological trial at which he was mightily vindicated.16 As such, the author of the gospel uses the category of witness to describe himself and his writing, with the purpose of bringing the putative readers to faith in Jesus as Christ (Jn 19.35). The gospel is offered as a counter-testimony to the false witness against Jesus. In the Book of Revelation, likewise, ‘witnessing’ refers to a verbal witness to the truth of God and a living obedience to the command of God. The two are not separated: a true speech is conjoined with a true life. Jesus himself is the primary ma,rtuj (Rev. 1.5): his followers do not offer their own witness, but continue his work of witness. This witness is of course contested, and gives rise to opposition – a false and beastly counter-testimony, rooted in the primal lie of the serpent in Eden. The examples of Jesus, Paul and Stephen shape Christian discipleship as a life in which suffering rejection is the likely norm. Christian discipleship is described as a death to self and a taking on of new life, in union with Jesus Christ.17 Union with Jesus Christ by faith creates a supreme bond of loyalty which is tested daily in the struggle against sin, the world, the Devil; and even when put to the test of martyrdom transcends all other loyalties. Not surprisingly, Christian baptism is a symbol of the offering of the old self over to death, which is what every Christian does as an identiﬁcation with Jesus Christ. It is a

14 Ibid. 15 Jaroslav Pelikan, Acts (London: SCM Press, 2006), pp. 106–8. 16 Lincoln persuasively reads John in terms of the trial/witness motif. (Andrew T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000).) 17 See Rom. 6.1-10.

6

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

kind of proto-martyrdom, with its act of testimony to Christ and renunciation of the world, the ﬂesh and the Devil.18 The plunging into the water symbolizes dying and then rising to new life. First Timothy 6.12ff explicitly compares th.n kalh.n o`mologi,an (the ‘good confession’) of Jesus under Pilate with the confession of Timothy made (presumably) at his baptism.19 That is to say, the rite of entry into the Christian community symbolically unites a confession and a death. The trajectory from this moment to instances of martyrdom is not at all surprising, given that this was how the Christians identiﬁed themselves.20 By the time of Augustine, the celebration and memorialization of the martyrs was an indication of just how deeply embedded in Christian self-perception martyrdom had become.21 The treatment given the theme by several theologians in the interim (Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Cyprian among them) serves to underscore its signiﬁcance. Martyrdom is the possibility latent in the Christian identity, for all Christians are called to the ‘witness’ or ‘testimony’ (martu,rion) that might result in bloody (or ‘red’) martyrdom. Every Christian, we might say, is already a martyr; for, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it, ‘[T]he cross is laid on every Christian.’22 The martyr outwardly represents the Christian way of understanding both the world and the situatedness of the self in that world.23 As Balthasar writes: . . . this does not mean that every single Christian must suffer bloody martyrdom, but he must consider the entire case as the external representation of the inner reality out of which he lives.24 18 Certainly Paul treats baptism as a symbol of death/new life in Romans 6. Origen makes the connection between the baptismal promises and the test of martyrdom explicit in his Exhortation to Martyrdom. (Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, in Rowan A. Greer (ed.), Origen (London: SPCK, 1979), III.17, p. 157.) 19 Though baptism is not explicitly mentioned here, a formal congregational ceremony is strongly implied. See I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), p. 661. 20 Rowan Williams writes of the martyr narratives that ‘[T]he issue is who the believer is, and whether or not this is a person whose life is deﬁned by the sovereignty of God’s free gift.’ (Rowan Williams, Christ on Trial: How the Gospel Unsettles Our Judgement (London: Fount, 2000a), p. 99.) 21 For Castelli, ‘[T]he memory work done by early Christians on the historical experience of persecution and martyrdom was a form of culture making, whereby Christian identity was indelibly marked by the collective memory of the religious suffering of others.’ (Elizabeth A. Castelli, Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making, Gender, Theory, and Religion (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), p. 4.) See also my review: Michael P. Jensen, ‘Review of Elizabeth A. Castelli, Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making’, Studies in Christian Ethics, 20(1) (2007a), pp. 125–8. 22 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (trans. R. H. Fuller; London: SCM Press, 2001), p. 44. Similarly, Australian theologian Peter F. Jensen writes: ‘Martyrdom . . . is only the ultimate form of obedience, of being a follower of Jesus. The cross is a daily form of life . . . the spirit that makes the martyr for Christ is simply an extension of that which makes the ordinary believer’ (Peter F. Jensen, The Future of Jesus (Sydney, NSW: ABC Books, 2005), pp. 61, 74). 23 See, for example, Mt. 10.18f. 24 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Moment of Christian Witness (San Francisco: Ignatius,

INTRODUCTION

7

Martyrdom thus provides us with a unique opportunity to examine and reﬂect on the meaning of Christian identity and its reception in the world.

C

‘Identity’ and ‘The self’

Already prominent in this discussion are some concepts that need elucidation – for the purposes of working deﬁnitions – namely, ‘the self’ and ‘identity’. The purpose of this section is to orient this study to its subject matter in the terms that appear in contemporary philosophical discourse. This will give some indication of the way in which the terms will be adapted and applied in the context of this study; but as I intend here to give a theological account of the self in terms of martyrdom, these deﬁnitions or orientations should not be thought of as setting the outward limits of the discussion. I shall seek in this task the assistance of Paul Ricoeur in particular, though it will be of interest to take note of similar lines of thought appearing in the work of such thinkers as Calvin Schrag, Seyla Benhabib, Anthony Giddens and Charles Taylor. Further: the present task is not yet to give a critical evaluation of discourses of selfhood; a detailed engagement with two such accounts is to be found in Chapter 2. In his monumental work Oneself as Another, Ricoeur makes a distinction between the two major meanings of the word ‘identity’ in terms of the Latin words idem and ipse.25 Idem-identity has the sense of ‘sameness’. Under this deﬁnition, a person’s identity can be constituted from matrices or horizons that stem from comparison to others. So, I identify with those who are the same as me, and I do not identify with those who are different. On the other hand, ipse-identity invites an understanding of identity in terms of ‘selfhood’. As an identity, the self has to be reﬂexively understood.26 Self-identity refers at the outset to the one I am speaking about when I am able to speak self-consciously about myself. It is an indication of self-awareness, a capacity for ‘seeing’ oneself. We might describe it as a mental gaze at one’s own reﬂection in a mirror. 1994), p. 22. 25 Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another (trans. Kathleen Blamey; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 2. Latter-day thought about the self and personal identity begins with a critique of the inwardness and abstractness of Enlightenment accounts. As Wilhelm Dilthey wrote: ‘No real blood runs in the veins of the knowing subject that Locke, Hume and Kant constructed’ (cited in Anthony C. Thiselton, Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self: On Meaning, Manipulation and Promise (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), p. 47). For his part, Ricoeur introduces his philosophy of the self as means of bypassing the stand-off between the Cartesian idea of the posited cogito and its Nietzschean (and, subsequently, postmodern) undoing. In Thiselton’s opinion, Ricoeur’s achievement is ‘to undermine equally the autonomous self which commands the centre of the stage in high modernity and the reduced, de-centred self of postmodernity’ (ibid., p. 78). Ricoeur (1994: 134–9) also gives extensive time to responding to more analytic accounts of identity, such as that of Derek Parﬁt. 26 I make more modest here Giddens’s claim that the self ‘has to be reﬂexively made’ (Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell, 1991), p. 3; emphasis mine).

8

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

This self-awareness is not self-understanding as such, or an appreciation of the meaning of oneself; but it is a prompt to self-understanding. The very notion of ‘oneself’ invites one on a quest to discover or make sense of who it is one is talking of when one refers to ‘oneself’. If I am to make sense of myself, I need a point of reference or comparison. I must be able to trace in some way a coherence, a pattern in this entity I name ‘self’. Time27 offers that to me in two ways: ﬁrst, by an act of remembering I can trace my own actions and experiences across time. I can begin to see patterns of cause and effect; to make sense of motivations and intentions; to have feelings of nostalgia and regret, and so on. As a number of recent theorists have observed: I begin to see my own narrative emerging, the story of my own self.28 In turn, secondly, I can begin to exercise my other mental faculty relating to time – my imagination – and to project into the future the next stages in the ‘emplotment’ (Ricoeur’s term) of my life.29 To pursue this invitation to understand oneself, then, suggests that it is a narrative that needs to be understood. It is true to our experience of embodiment to think this way, too: that we are not selves known in abstract, as if we are static types, but rather that we are revealed, to others as well as to ourselves, as characters in a sequence of causally related events. We notice then, of course, that we are not, even in this moment of reﬂexivity, cut off from the phenomenal world of space and time – but, rather, thoroughly situated within it. In other words, this reﬂexive sense of identity invites expression in the form of a narrative. That is what our memories do for us: they narrate the self into identity, interpreting the past for us and projecting out of that past a future, the open horizon to which our personal history is moving.30 Story is, after all, a remarkable mnemonic device. Personal identity could be said to take this narrative form because of its inherently historical nature.31 What we have in narrative is a binding together of word and event: the

27 Dilthey’s insistence that accounts of selfhood must recognize the temporal context of lived experience is indispensable to later accounts of selfhood (Thiselton, Interpreting God, p. 59). 28 In addition to Ricoeur, thinkers attracted to a narrative view of identity include: Alasdair C. MacIntyre (After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2nd edn, 1984)); Marya Schechtman (The Constitution of Selves (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996)); Charles Taylor (Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989b)). 29 Calvin Schrag writes: ‘. . . the self that has nothing to remember and nothing for which to hope is a self whose identity stands in peril’ (Calvin O. Schrag, The Self after Postmodernity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 37). 30 George W. Stroup, The Promise of Narrative Theology (London: SCM Press, 1984), p. 107. 31 In connecting identity with consciousness, John Locke long ago recognized the importance of memory for personal identity and ethics. However, he came under strong criticism from Joseph Butler and Thomas Reid because he located personal identity in the consciousness, as distinct from any substance-based identity (David Shoemaker, ‘Personal identity and ethics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-ethics/ (accessed 13 Oct. 2009)).

INTRODUCTION

9

event is described and given coherence by the application of the shape and categories of narrative. Narrative applies a causal and teleological form to events as we experience them – though this is not altogether arbitrary. The sequentiality of events invites the search for causal links between them, and further invites an inquiry into the teleological aspect.32 Is there some force or personality guiding or shaping events, and if so, of what nature? Ought we speak of luck or of fortune, or of providence? We recognize our own narrativity even in our own bodies: as they change over time, collecting scars and wrinkles, we experience in ourselves the results and effects of our experiences. This is not to say that our narrating of the events of our experience is the ﬁnal truth about them; or that every account that we give of events we have experienced is absolutely comprehensive. Narratives offer themselves as a means to overcome the problem of persistence in identity: namely, the problem of conceiving of the continuity of an entity who ‘acts and suffers within a framework of continuity and change through the changes and continuities of time’.33 Human actions may bring about or contribute to change – change which may alter the self drastically. However, there is also a continuity in the sense that the actions can be ascribed to the same self who acted in the ﬁrst place. Narratives enable the tracing of this movement of action and change over time. Furthermore, narrative may function in both a descriptive mode (especially when oriented to the past) and a prescriptive mode (with the future in view). While Shoemaker claims this as a shortcoming or even a confusion,34 in fact there is much to be said for this ﬂexibility. Narrative may be a means to understand what has in fact happened to me, but also a way in which to think about how I propose to act. A third advantage is that narratives claim that they account for both action and intention: they describe the things that are done, and give explanations for them in terms of motivation. They address, in other words, both the inward and the outward conditions of selves. Thus, if ipse-identity requires narration, then it also draws the self into the realm of the ethical.35 This is for two reasons. First, there is the realization that we are actors and agents, who may participate and contribute to the chain 32 Of course, inviting the inquiry into teleology might result in a non-teleological response. For example, ‘luck’ might be the only determinative ‘principle’ discerned. 33 Thiselton, Interpreting God, p. 74. 34 Shoemaker, ‘Personal identity and ethics’. 35 John Locke had already in the seventeenth century sought to connect personal identity with ethical concerns. A narrative account of selfhood, however, brings the ethical dimension to light in a powerful way that reﬂects our lived experience. As Ricoeur (1994: 115) writes: ‘[T]here is no ethically neutral narrative. Literature is a vast laboratory in which we experiment with estimations, evaluations, and judgments of approval and condemnation through which narrativity serves as a propaedeutic to ethics.’ Taylor (1989b: 89), for his part, writes: ‘the issue of how we are placed in relation to this good is of crucial and inescapable concern for us, that we cannot but strive to give our lives meaning or substance, and that this means that we understand ourselves inescapably in narrative’. Against Taylor’s rather absolute statement, it ought to be noted that Shoemaker (2008), for one, expresses reservations about the narrative approach. See also Galen Strawson, ‘Against narrativity’, Ratio, XVII (2004), pp. 428–52.

10

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

of causality. As selves in time, we are immediately in the position of asking how it is we are going to act in a way that is consistent and coherent with our emerging conception of our self-identity – so that we are recognizable to ourselves as well as to others. What is it that I am to do? How are my actions going to make sense as coming from me, as being ‘mine’? We might question the sanity of someone whose actions do not emerge from some even partially evident sense of self – a judgement even the insane person might make as they ﬁnd themselves unable to answer the question ‘why did you do that?’36 In retrospect, too, we are asked to account for our actions – to ascribe to them a sense of appropriateness or ﬁtness. That is to say, judgement is required. The second point is not unrelated: the notion of the self is also an invitation to pursue the ‘true’, or perhaps ‘authentic’, self. The corollary of this is that the individual must have, or develop, some conception of the good by which to judge the self that might emerge.37 Yet, with the turn of the self to the good does not come an automatic description of the good. So, if the chosen measure for self-realization is ‘authenticity’, for example, then the concept must be given some relatively substantial account if the authentic self is to be recognized when it appears. Which is to say, the hermeneutics of the self orient the self to the pursuit of the good, without also giving thereby a deﬁnition of what the good is. That discovery remains to be made, or that revelation remains to be given. Already I have suggested that an examination of ipse-identity inevitably demands an account of the situatedness of the self. The self cannot be described in splendid and abstract isolation, as it was once thought the Cartesian cogito could be. The self is a self only and always among other selves with whom, in the ﬁrst instance, it is possible to make comparisons of similarity and dissimilarity;38 and, secondly, with whom the self must live, and relate. ‘One is a self’, writes Charles Taylor, ‘only among other selves’.39 The discussion is opened up, therefore, to social, political and historical dimensions, and must deal with the particularity and contingency of lived experience. Once again, raising the question of other selves or relationships at this stage is not to say 36 Hence, we are drawn to speak of character, which Ricoeur (1994: 122) somewhat elliptically describes as ‘truly the “what” of the “who”’. See also MacIntyre, After Virtue, pp. 216–22. 37 ‘To know who you are is to be oriented in moral space, a space in which questions arise about what is good and bad . . .’ See Taylor, Sources of the Self, p. 28. 38 Thus Seyla Benhabib: ‘The identity of the self is constituted by a narrative unity, which integrates what “I” can do, have done and will accomplish with what you expect of “me”, interpret my acts and intentions to mean, wish for in the future . . .’ (Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (New York: Routledge, 1992), p. 5). 39 Taylor, Sources of the Self, p. 35. Taylor notes that giving an articulation of the self by means of language necessarily involves participation in a language community – in other words, the self can only be described with reference to the selves surrounding it (ibid., pp. 34–6). The necessity for others in self-understanding is not a new discovery. Already in the work of Schleiermacher, himself inﬂuenced by Schelling, is to be found a stress on the inter-subjectivity of self-knowledge. The encounter with the Other is indispensable for all understanding, and especially for understanding oneself (Thiselton, 1995: 50).

INTRODUCTION

11

who these others might be, or how they are or might be encountered, or what form these relationships are to take. The two forms of identity thus prove to be closely related and mutually informing. For the purpose of this study, this means that each of the terms ‘identity’ and ‘the self’ can be used and at the same time refer validly to the meaning indicated by the other term. ‘Identity’ and ‘the self’ are suggestive of an interpretational activity with the individual’s life as its object. As we have seen, this means that we are led into a consideration of the narrativity of the self, which in turn leads us into the realm of the ethical and, by extension, into a consideration of the self among other selves. In this way, the concepts themselves can function for us as invitations rather than as conclusions. If, then, we are asking about the Christian ‘self’ or ‘identity’ as it is expressed in martyrdom, we will be asking these three general questions concerning selfhood: ‘what kind of narration of the self is indicated?’, ‘what account of the good is given, and how is it to be realised?’ and ‘how are the relationships between this self and other selves to be described?’ However, while the questions, drawn from philosophical discourse, may serve as prompts, it is also the case that addressing them in theological terms will give occasion to revisit even the form of the questions so put.

D

The work in outline

This book unfolds in three parts. In the ﬁrst part (Chapter 2) I shall seek to show, by means of expositions of the work of philosopher Charles Taylor and novelist Salman Rushdie, that selfhood shaped by Christian martyrdom proves difﬁcult for these instances of secular contemporary accounts of identity and personal authenticity. Both non-theological attempts to give answers to the questions of selfhood (as I have just outlined them) struggle to accommodate the possibility of a selfhood conditioned by the possibility of martyrdom. In the instance of Charles Taylor, who might well see his own account of ‘the ethics of authenticity’ as proto-theological, I will argue that his attempt to revive authenticity is not particular enough or exclusive enough to suit the conditions under which martyrdom occurs. On the other hand, Salman Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses gives an avowedly anti-theological version of human self-fulﬁlment, repudiates any self-identiﬁcation that might rest on martyrdom in the name of any religion. If Christians consider martyrdom to be the ‘normal condition’ of their existence,40 then so much the worse for them – and indeed for the whole human community. Martyrdom is far too rigidly and irrationally traditional to allow the individual self the ﬂexibility to transmogrify according to the twists and turns of fate. As an expression of an identity, it closes off the self to experiencing the new; it perverts love and denies life. It is an invalid self-narration, and a very thin account of the good. However, Rushdie’s account is not without its own difﬁculties: it is hard to see that he has successfully escaped from the

40 Balthasar, The Moment of Christian Witness, p. 21.

12

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

‘self-determination’ problem that Taylor derides in his account of authenticity. Furthermore, while his depiction of martyrdom might hold for some Christian and other religious martyrdoms, it is certainly not the case that his criticisms of martyrdom fairly describe a Christian martyrdom that is true to its own sources, not least in the example of Jesus Christ himself. I turn, then, in the second part (Chapters 3–6) to an elucidation of Christian martyrdom and its implications for selfhood. In this I am assisted by T. S. Eliot’s martyrological drama Murder in the Cathedral (1935), which sheds considerable light on the themes of this study.41 In the instance of Eliot’s literary creation, Archbishop Thomas Becket (or, more accurately, his interpretation of a historical ﬁgure), we are given a richly imaginative reﬂection on martyrdom in the Scriptures and the Christian tradition as a whole. By dramatizing a particular martyrdom, the play presents martyrdom in its true, narrative form and enables us to observe its narrative logic. The play enables us to investigate, imaginatively and theologically, the interior life and struggles of the martyr – things which are not frequently available to us. By drawing us into the three questions of narrative, the good and the self-re-other-selves, the drama offers beneﬁts to this discussion not necessarily available from those abstract kinds of discourse more customarily part of theological analyses. Further, as we shall see, the play suggests that no account of identity can be theologically adequate that does not acknowledge the crucial signiﬁcance of temptation on the one hand, and providence on the other. The play’s plot is straightforward: returning from exile in France and aware that he is an enemy of the King, Thomas must resist the four ghostly Tempters if he is to die the death of a true martyr. His murder by the King’s henchmen then forms the substance of the second part of the play. Though not a ‘professional’ theologian, Eliot (as his role in this study will demonstrate) had a remarkably sound theological instinct, and, of course, the compressed and yet fertile expression of one of the great poetic voices of the twentieth century.42 Using the drama as a heuristic device (though not uncritically so), we proceed to a scriptural and theological exposition of martyrdom and the self. Anticipating the objection that the play is a purely literary artifact subject to primarily aesthetic criteria which, therefore, has a dubious place in a theological account of martyrdom, it is pertinent to note that Murder in the Cathedral was commissioned by a Church of England Bishop (Bishop George Bell) and designed to be performed within the walls of Canterbury Cathedral. Eliot was quite aware that his initial audience was an ecclesiastical one. If anything, the play has had a rather awkward and ambivalent reception as a literary artifact, quite because of its almost liturgical quality and its theological subject

41 Patristic scholar Warren Smith has also recognized the potential of this play as a stimulus for theological thought. (J. Warren Smith, ‘Martyrdom: self-denial or self-exaltation? Motives for self-sacriﬁce from Homer to Polycarp: a theological reﬂection’, Modern Theology, 22(2) (2006), 169–96.) 42 See Donald Davie, ‘Anglican Eliot’, in A. Walton Litz (ed.), Eliot in His Time: Essays on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Waste Land (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973).

INTRODUCTION

13

matter.43 Perhaps uniquely among twentieth-century plays, then, Murder in the Cathedral has a place at the table of theological discussion.44 The four temptations presented to Archbishop Thomas in the ﬁrst act of Murder in the Cathedral are each an offer of an alternative self-identity to that which results in Christian martyrdom.45 The temptations – his ‘strife with shadows’ – do not come from some point external to him, but already subsist within him: they are already features of his character that he may choose to embrace or reject as his own truth. In the example of Thomas’s rejection of them, Eliot signals that the meaning of Christian identity is not found in capitulating to these temptations; or, to put it positively, the Christian self is the one who resists these temptations even to the end. The temptations put to this particular martyr, then, form the catalyst for my discussion of martyrdom and identity in general. The First Tempter (Chapter 3) reminds Thomas of his past life of comfort and ease under the protection of his king. The temptation is framed as a nostalgic vision of yearning for an unrepeatable past which is still yet able to capture the heart. The Second Tempter (Chapter 4) and the Third Tempter (Chapter 5) share a concern for the assertion of the self through power. For his part, the Second Tempter offers a collaboration with the King with the entirely reasonable argument that church and governor and people will beneﬁt from the arrangement – and that Thomas will not have wasted his life. The Third Tempter likewise appeals to a view of the good, by encouraging Thomas to join with him in rebellious political action in the name of the true identity of the nation. If the King is a tyrant and his claim to represent his nation tenuous, then surely his removal is warranted in the name of patriotic duty. The Fourth Tempter (Chapter 6) is the most surprising, bringing the glory and honour of martyrdom itself as the substance of his temptation. In human terms, he offers Thomas the possibility of narrating himself into the honour of great renown. Or, if Thomas should reject this motivation, the Tempter sets before him the promise of heavenly rewards as an enticement to martyrdom, knowing of course that acceptance of the offer will corrupt the idea of martyrdom itself. That is to say: he is tempted to justify himself in the heavenly court. In each case I will explore the meanings of the temptations with reference also to philosophical works. The ﬁrst temptation is intensiﬁed as we look to Martha C. Nussbaum, who argues that selves should invest in a broad portfolio of goods as a means of guarding against luck. The second temptation ﬁnds an echo in the work of American neopragmatist Richard Rorty, who advocates the ‘ironic self’, an individual capable of entering the public sphere without clinging to a metaphysical view of the self. In the case of the third 43 We will return to the difﬁculty that the play has as a piece of contemporary theatre in Chapter 8, as a case study for the reception of Christian martyrdom within secularized culture. 44 It almost goes without saying that poets have long formed part of the Christian tradition of theological thinking. The ﬁssure between ‘aesthetic’ and ‘theological’ is a post-Romantic-era one. 45 Recognizing this, in productions of the play the Four Tempters are frequently portrayed as aspects of Thomas’s character. (T. S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral (ed. Nevill Coghill; London: Faber, 1965), p. 106 – from Coghill’s explanatory notes.)

14

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

temptation, English conservative philosopher Roger Scruton expounds the kind of idealistic patriotism offered to the Archbishop – and of which Eliot himself is somewhat of an exponent in his political writings. In the fourth temptation, in which the martyr’s motives come under scrutiny, I will trace both the ‘honour ethic’ and the ‘theology of heavenly rewards’. Each temptation thus puts a difﬁcult question before the Christian disciple that is a real challenge to her identity. The temptations are not merely arguments to be won but possible selves one might embrace in terms of security, power, patriotic action and honour. To respond to such a challenge is to be thrown back on the Scriptures and the tradition. To that end I embark on a scriptural and theological enquiry into the signiﬁcance of each temptation and its renunciation. Christian discipleship emerges from rejection of these offers, as martyrdom reveals, and itself allows a critique of some of the contemporary versions of selfhood being proposed. It is an acceptance of (rather than a management of) risk on the basis of the call of Christ and the vision of the heavenly city. Martyrdom is not a sign that the Christian self is always at odds with earthly government; but neither is the authentic Christian given to collusion with the state and its values. Martyrdom is not an assertion of the self through action, but rather a suffering act which refuses that assertion. Neither is it patriotic without reserve. Christian martyrdom is not even the result, it turns out, of pursuing martyrdom, but rather of discipleship and witness. It is not really a self-narration at all. The crowning of martyrs is, as we shall see, a divine rather than a human business. Having described what martyrdom avoids, how then may we describe, in positive terms, the understanding of self-identity that arises from Christian martyrdom? The seventh chapter, which opens the third section, proceeds as a discussion of two themes that have arisen in the preceding chapters: temptation and providence. These are basic to the ‘narrative logic’ of martyrdom. I shall offer here an analysis of peirasmo,j – which includes both ‘trial’ and ‘temptation’ – as a condition which human beings encounter with monotonous inevitability. The making or narrating of a ‘self’ is insufﬁcient to defeat peirasmo,j, we shall discover. Christ – who is at once both the conqueror of peirasmo,j and the agent of divine providence – is the point at which the two themes overlap. It is precisely this ‘eternal patience’46 – the providentia dei revealed and enacted in the passion and resurrection of the divine Son – that is the mark of the martyred self. The focus in Christian martyrdom is thus on the vindication, rather than the innocence, of the martyr. The ﬁnal chapter recapitulates these themes by way of a discussion of Stephen Pimlott’s 1993 production of Murder in the Cathedral. Reviewers of the play found Thomas somewhat baffling and unsatisfying. Does an 46 The phrase comes from perhaps the most curious speech in Eliot’s play. It is spoken ﬁrst by Thomas: ‘Neither does the agent suffer Nor the patient act. But both are ﬁxed In an eternal action, an eternal patience To which all must consent that it may be willed And which all must suffer that they may will it . . .’ (I.208-17)

INTRODUCTION

15

identity framed in terms of Christian martyrdom in fact represent the defeat of the possibility of communication with the world, a retreat behind sectarian or tribal lines? In particular, these questions relate to the matter of the self-among-other-selves. I will take my cue from Eliot once more, and offer an analysis of the way in which martyrological narratives invite (rather than repel) attention, and are in fact true to their own nature as witness. Christian martyrdom is undertaken by a self offered in the service of the God of Jesus Christ; and, because this is so, it is also a sacriﬁce made on behalf of the world, a sign of the divine commitment to the world. Thus, the Christian claim is that authentic human identity is found in discipleship, and that, providentially, this identity survives even the peirasmo,j of a bloody death.

This page intentionally left blank

2

‘What kind of idea are you?’ Martyrdom and identity in Charles Taylor and in Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses

A

Introduction

We have already seen that martyrdom is the external demonstration of the internal reality of the Christian person. I have also brieﬂy indicated that the notion of martyrdom is sharply contested as an inauthentic and destructive form of identity in a number of contemporary accounts of selfhood and identity. In this chapter my aim is to expound in more depth the problem of the martyred self for these non-theological (or even anti-theological) perspectives. First, we address the work of Charles Taylor as one of the most prominent diagnosticians of the self and identity within contemporary moral philosophy.1 His description of late-modern identity in terms of ‘the ethics of authenticity’ serves to introduce some additional conceptual tools into our discussion with which to inquire as to the authenticity of the martyred self-among-other-selves. But Taylor also offers a positive account of authentic selfhood, not apparently hostile to martyrdom but, in the view of this study, problematic on its own terms. Second, we turn to one of the late twentieth century’s most noted public intellectuals, the British-Indian novelist Salman Rushdie, and to his novel The Satanic Verses, in which he evinces both a critical suspicion of martyrdom, and also gives a particular account of the identity, the self and human authenticity. Rushdie offers a view of self-identity which resonates at some points with Taylor’s description, but says a deﬁnite ‘no’ to martyrdom as a possible

1 Taylor’s inﬂuence is illustrated by the growing number of monographs on him now available, among which are: Ruth Abbey, Charles Taylor (Teddington: Acumen, 2000); Arto Laitinen and Nicholas H. Smith, Perspectives on the Philosophy of Charles Taylor (Helsinki: Philosophical Society of Finland, 2002); Mark Redhead, Charles Taylor: Thinking and Living Deep Diversity (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld, 2002). 17

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

18

authentic choice for right-thinking contemporary people. Here then are two powerful attempts – one philosophical, one literary – to give an account of authentic selfhood and human identity-making in the modern world in terms of narrativity, orientation to the good and the self-with-others. Though they diverge from one another in many aspects, both are in my view problematic as accounts of selfhood on their own terms, and are further problematized if selfhood is viewed through the lens of Christian martyrdom.

B

Charles Taylor and authenticity

i. Introduction: authenticity as a theme The purpose of this section is to outline and then evaluate Charles Taylor’s 1991 work The Ethics of Authenticity as a construal of selfhood which appears to allow for an afﬁrmation of Christian martyrdom. Taylor suggests that ‘authenticity’, properly conceived, may be a potent way to answer the questions of the self. To discover the self’s authenticity has become a prominent theme within the late-modern quest for self-identity, as Taylor points out. This was recognized by the literary critic Lionel Trilling in his book Sincerity and Authenticity, where he called authenticity ‘part of the moral slang of our day’.2 Trilling also showed that authenticity is part of a discourse with its roots deep in the nineteenth century, and even in the writings of Rousseau. He traces the descent into banality of the ideal through the inﬂuence of Freud and Nietzsche, so that in the late modern era

The falsities of an alienated social reality are rejected in favour of an upward psychopathic mobility to the point of divinity, each one of us a Christ – but with none of the inconveniences of undertaking to intercede, of being a sacriﬁce, of reasoning with rabbis, of making sermons, of having disciples, of going to weddings and to funerals, of beginning something and at a certain point remarking that it is ﬁnished.3 What may have once been an appealing ethical ideal has, for Trilling, become a way for individuals to articulate self-interested self-assertion. Building on Trilling’s analysis, Charles Taylor offers his book The Ethics of Authenticity as a restatement and readjustment of authenticity as a moral ideal. As we shall see, the way in which Taylor presents his case is suggestive of a theological discussion that he himself does not offer.4 The strong implication is that the 2 Lionel Trilling, Sincerity and Authenticity (Oxford University Press: London, 1972), p. 93. 3 Ibid., p. 171. 4 In Taylor’s most recent large work, he consciously incorporates and restates the ideas presented earlier in The Ethics of Authenticity. This present analysis can thus be read as an engagement with a part of Taylor’s ongoing philosophical project. In his recent book, granted, he begins to take up some of the more theological themes suggested by his previous work, such that his apologetic intentions are much more in evidence. See the chapters ‘The malaise of modernity’ and ‘The age of authenticity’ in Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

19

ideal of authenticity ought to resonate with a theological discussion of the self and its own truth. In the terms of this study, this means that Taylor makes a space in which a martyrological self might be described as authentic – at least potentially.5 ii. The three malaises The Ethics of Authenticity opens with a diagnosis of three ‘malaises’ of the contemporary culture of the West.6 The appearance of the symptoms is relatively uncontroversial: there is a widespread experience of loss which controverts the apparent progress our civilization has made. The ﬁrst malaise is held to be individualism, which appears to be causing a felt loss of meaning. Second, the ascent of instrumental reason, on which so much of modern life depends, has led to a feeling that we are pressed by the powerful mechanisms of the industrial and bureaucratic state. Taylor calls this problem an ‘eclipse of ends’.7 Third, on the political level the consequence of individualism and instrumental reason is a lack of active participation in the process of government, leading to what Tocqueville described as the ‘soft despotism’ of the democratic state over its docile citizens. Taylor offers a full discussion of only the ﬁrst of these malaises. There are those, whom Taylor calls the ‘knockers’,8 who write with an apocalyptic fervour against these cultural patterns, in particular targeting self-centredness and relativism for opprobrium. Opposed to them (though few if any are named by Taylor) are the ‘boosters’, who fear that the reaction is fed by nostalgia for a more closed and ordered – in other words, ‘oppressive’ – age. Taylor offers his diagnosis as an alternative interpretation to both of these – not as a trade-off between the two somehow, but as a completely different analysis, ‘a position distinct from both boosters and knockers of contemporary culture’.9 For Taylor, there is indeed ‘a powerful moral ideal’ at work in contemporary culture, despite what the knockers are saying. There is in fact a vision of what a higher or better mode of life might be. It is just that there is a problem with ‘inarticulacy’10 in contemporary moral discussions such that the moral ideal is hard to identify even for those who are espousing it. Taylor views the criticism of modern laxity as misplaced. There is, he asserts, an ethic at the heart of modern culture, though it is evident in deformed ways. But one of the greatest difﬁculties of correcting the deformities lies in the inability of modern culture to admit that it even has a moral ideal in the ﬁrst place.

5 6 7 8 9 10

2007), pp. 299–321, 473–504. For my own further analysis of Taylor, see Michael P. Jensen, ‘In spirit and in truth: Can Charles Taylor help the woman at the well ﬁnd her authentic self?’, Studies in Christian Ethics, 21(3) (2008), pp. 325–41. Elsewhere, Taylor (1989b: 218–19) gives a brief comment on the place of martyrdom in the Christian self-understanding. The book was published as The Malaise of Modernity in its ﬁrst Canadian edition. Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 10. Chief among them is Allan D. Bloom. (The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987).) Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 22. Ibid., p. 17.

20

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

iii. Retrieving authenticity This moral ideal is what Taylor describes as the ethic of authenticity. It is, he claims, an idea with considerable moral appeal, if only it could be expressed in a more intelligible way. At present, it appears mostly in degenerate forms, as a travesty of itself. What Taylor proposes, then, is a work of retrieval:11 he thinks that by a fresh articulation of the ideal of authenticity, the good that is in it might be rediscovered in a way that speaks powerfully to people who are already attracted to it. Something quite important about Taylor’s intellectual strategy is revealed here too. His goal is in a sense rather modest – he does not want to give voice to some eternal moral truth, but rather to suggest ways in which better outcomes can be achieved for human persons given the common heritage we share (and struggle over). He chooses to be an advocate for authenticity because it is, at least partly, the ethic we in the West have already inherited. Pursuing it is, in a way, being true to who we are as people of this time and place. At least, he seems to be saying, talking about authenticity will be talking about some vision of the good, which is an advance on the stultifying inarticulacy of ethical discourse that he observes in contemporary culture. What is the ideal of authenticity? Taylor traces the ethic of authenticity to the end of the eighteenth century, observing that it descends both from the rationality of Descartes and the individualism of Locke. It was further suggested in the eighteenth century (particularly by Rousseau) that morality was anchored within us, in an intuitive sense of right and wrong. It ought to be added that this had been learnt from the vigorous discussions in the Christian tradition about the conscience; but there was at this time a turn to intuitive feeling rather than moral calculation as the source of moral understanding. In fact, what becomes essential to attaining true human being is to be in touch with this inner depth of the self, to have a ‘reﬂexive awareness of ourselves’.12 Taylor claims that this turn inwards was already present in the West through Augustine and Luther’s appropriation of Pauline thought.13 11 Taylor uses this word of his own work in Sources of the Self, where he writes (with Hegelian overtones): ‘The intention of this work was one of retrieval, an attempt to uncover buried goods through rearticulation – and thereby to make these sources again empower, to bring the air back again into the half-collapsed lungs of the spirit’ (The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 520). 12 Ibid., p. 27. 13 Here I suspect Taylor (or, at least, the Western tradition of thought he describes) has misread the Christian mode of introspection found in Luther’s reading of Paul. For Luther, the gospel was simultaneously a declaration of God’s justiﬁcation of the sinner in Christ and the news that he was a sinner in need of justiﬁcation in the ﬁrst place (simul iustus et peccator). Inwardness was a dead end. Introspection was not the path to greater self-knowledge except in the sense that it led to greater awareness of one’s need for grace: ultimately the gospel of Christ was the basis for true understanding of the self. The Western tradition attempts to have the self-knowledge without the gospel of Christ that, on Luther’s (and, later, Calvin’s) account, reveals it. For a critique of Taylor’s reading of Augustine along these lines, see Brian Brock, Singing the Ethos of God: On the Place of Christian Ethics in Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 125–32. In his larger works, Taylor rightly emphasizes the role the Puritans had to play in developing introspectivity. See, for example, Taylor, Sources of the Self,

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

21

Though we can trace its multiple roots back in this way, authenticity as we know it today bursts into ﬂower during the Romantic period. Taylor associates with Herder a further development of the inward turn: that each of us has an original way of being human that is ours to discover. In fact: There is a certain way of being human that is my way. I am called upon to live my life this way, and not in imitation of anyone else’s. But this gives a new importance to being true to myself. If I am not, I miss the point of my life, I miss what being human is for me.14 To this is subsequently added (Taylor observes) the principle of originality: the model for living my life is only found within me, by being true to my own originality. Only I can discover it; only I can articulate it. Growing alongside the development of the authenticity ethic was the sense of self-determining freedom. This theme has had a complex relationship with authenticity and has led to a focus on choice as a crucial consideration in moral discourse. Taylor traces the rise of moral relativism back to this emphasis on freedom; and hence, according to his account, the ethic of authenticity has grown in distorted ways. How does one speak about morality to a people who do not ﬁnd any point of reference outside the self to be a compelling object of moral belief? Taylor is not deterred, because he is conﬁdent that while people may say they accept no moral demands, in fact they do subscribe to an authoritative moral ideal, that of authenticity. By giving expression to and interrogating this ideal it certainly ought to be possible to converse with people in the contemporary culture of authenticity. In what follows, Taylor invokes as an ‘inescapable horizon’15 the dialogical character of human life – in other words, the human self is more tightly bound in with explaining and articulating and justifying itself to others than is commonly imagined.16 In fact, the ideal of authenticity itself demands that there is some background sense of what is signiﬁcant – a ‘horizon of signiﬁcance’.17 This implies discrimination: a decision, a priori, about what is good and what is less so. Authenticity cannot be defended in ways that deny horizons of signiﬁcance. In fact (and here Taylor is especially suggestive of the theological), even the sense that choice is the root of my personal signiﬁcance is grounded on the understanding that ‘independent of my will there is something noble, courageous, and hence signiﬁcant in giving shape to my own life’.18 Horizons of signiﬁcance come to us from outside ourselves: they are given. There is already, anterior to the choices of the individual, a picture (or pictures) of what human beings are like, or ought to be. Even positing self-choice in itself as a moral ideal requires pp. 221–35. 14 Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 29. 15 Ibid., p. 31ff. 16 Latterly, Taylor has traced this observation through to the level of collective social identities. See Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004). 17 Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 38. Seyla Benhabib (1992) has a similar idea in mind when she writes of the ‘situatedness’ of the self. 18 Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 39.

22

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

that there be choices that themselves are signiﬁcant. As Taylor says, ‘I can deﬁne my identity only against the background of things that matter’;19 and if I am to bracket out from consideration history, nature, society and everything except for that which I ﬁnd in myself, I am surely not choosing for myself anything other than the trivial. ‘Authenticity is not the enemy of demands that emanate from beyond the self; it supposes such demands.’20 Some reference to the self-transcending – whether God, nature, nation, ideology or whatever else – is necessary for authentic selfhood. Choice itself cannot be basic. If it is incoherent to argue for self-fulfilment without regard to those demands which have their source outside the self, it is equally self-defeating to overlook the demands of our ties with others. One frequent theme in knocker writings is that a self-endorsed understanding of self-fulﬁlment is detrimental to all kinds of social life. Taylor once again turns to his ‘retrieval’ strategy: for him there is a notion of society inherent in the ideal of authenticity as a matter of plain fact, even when it is as badly distorted as it is now. Individualism makes its strong appeal to universal right and, in its contemporary form, puts a great deal of emphasis on intimate relationships as the sphere of self-discovery and self-fulﬁlment.21 What is clear is that our identity requires recognition by others.22 iv. A culture in tension Taylor’s reading of contemporary culture shows that it is in tension with itself. Though it appeals to the ideal of authenticity, several factors or themes have combined to make the realization of that ideal unachievable; and the deviant forms of this ideal thus abound. The culture of narcissism is founded on an ideal that it only ever fails to reach. As Taylor explains it, this situation has come to pass because those external factors which previously constrained the pursuit of naked self-interest are now not felt to be relevant. The slide in the culture of authenticity into atomism and anthropocentricism has come about because of the conditions of urban living and mass mobility, and because of the way in which our society places more and more value on instrumental reason. The deviancy in authenticity is explained in part by the fact that authenticity has to be pursued in an ‘industrial-technological-bureaucratic society’.23 Further, the pursuit of the authentic self has been placed alongside a move towards self-centred modes of self-fulﬁlment in popular culture and a simultaneous move towards nihilism in ‘high’ culture. The Neo-Nietzscheans, such as Foucault and Derrida, while explicitly claiming to undo the self (one thinks

19 20 21 22

Ibid., p. 40. Ibid., p. 41. A point also made by Anthony Giddens (1991: 87–8). Taylor later returned to the theme of recognition. (Charles Taylor, ‘The politics of recognition’, in Amy Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).) I shall turn brieﬂy to his work on recognition in my discussion of honour in Chapter 6. 23 Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 59. Trilling (1972: 127) notes that, since Ruskin, the appeal to authenticity has had an anti-technological streak. ‘The machine, said Ruskin, could make only inauthentic things, dead things.’

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

23

of the erasure of the self at the end of The Order of Things24), have, in fact, more deeply entrenched anthropocentricism. The self is supreme, even over those who would categorize it! Taylor here refers to the close analogy that exists between self-discovery and artistic creation. Artistic creation has become the paradigm of self-discovery: the artist becomes the ‘paradigm case of the human being’.25 Art itself is no longer honoured in its mimetic capacity but for its creative originality; so, discovery of the self requires poiesis, or ‘making’. Successful imitation is no longer what art is about. And so successful imitation of moral exemplars is no longer what the self is about.26 Authenticity is seen to require originality ex nihilo, as opposed to conformity to convention, or even a moulding of something new from existing materials. In this way, the search for authenticity in its Nietzschean mode is openly hostile to any form of morality that lies beyond the boundaries of the self. Rather than serving as a means to facilitate one’s moral behaviour, authenticity becomes something worth having for its own sake. However, in this embrace of self-determining freedom, the ethic of authenticity undercuts itself, for it neglects the inescapable horizons of signiﬁcance. As Taylor puts it, ‘authenticity can’t, shouldn’t, go all the way with self-determining freedom’.27 v. What remains of authenticity? At this point it is worth asking whether anything is retrievable from authenticity. If authenticity has become so perverted, so distorted, is it not perhaps preferable to ﬁnd another ideal altogether? Though he has made in many ways a good case against authenticity, Taylor thinks that it is worth struggling for: that if people respond to the call to raise the practice of the ethic of authenticity, its deviant forms can be overcome to the greater (and the individual) good. It is the meaning of authenticity itself that Taylor chooses as his battleground. Authenticity is worth ﬁghting for, because it is an identiﬁcation of one of the ‘important potentialities of human life’28 in that it points us to, as Taylor puts it, ‘a more self-responsible form of life’, because that life has become our own to live. The pull of ‘fulﬁlment’ in human experience is hard to ignore, and the ideal of authenticity at least makes sense of and articulates this powerful feeling.29

24 Foucault wrote that he could foresee a time when ‘man would be erased like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea’ (Michel Foucault, The Order of Things (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 490). 25 Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 62. Trilling (1972: 99) draws the same analogy with the aesthetic: ‘As the [nineteenth] century advances the sentiment of being, of being strong, is increasingly subsumed under the conception of personal authenticity. The work of art is itself authentic by reason of its entire self-deﬁnition: it is understood to exist wholly by the laws of its own being, which include the right to embody painful, ignoble or socially inacceptable [sic] subject matters.’ 26 An interesting exception is Edith Wyschogrod, who makes a notable attempt to reposition hagiography as a source for moral thinking. (Edith Wyschogrod, Saints and Postmodernism: Revisioning Moral Philosophy (Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1990).) 27 Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 68. 28 Ibid., p. 74. 29 See also Taylor, Sources of the Self, pp. 44–5.

24

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Authenticity might describe the manner of my acting, but it need not refer to the whole matter of what I do. It is clearly my orientation that is in view with authenticity – it is, at that level, self-referential. However, that doesn’t mean the content must be self-referential like this. In fact, Taylor strongly suggests that genuine fulﬁlment will be found in self-transcending categories, like God: I can ﬁnd fulﬁlment in God, or a political cause, or tending the earth. Indeed . . . we will ﬁnd genuine fulﬁlment only in something like this, which has signiﬁcance independent of us or our desires.30 The mistake that modern culture has made has been to suggest that each self must create anew and from within not only the manner of authentic selfhood but its matter as well. The modern self is called upon to self-deﬁne and also to deﬁne the entire system of reference against which that self is to be understood. Rather, in Taylor’s account, to be true to oneself is to see oneself positioned on a broader, and external, horizon of signiﬁcance. vi. Evaluation The strength of Taylor’s case for the ethic of authenticity (and its possible application to martyrdom) lies in its descriptive power: it appeals to a general human longing for true purpose and satisfaction.31 The success of Taylor’s retrieval depends, however, on whether he has persuasively untangled authenticity from self-determining freedom. Rightly construed (he hopes), the appeal to authentic selfhood could inspire people in the West to live remarkable lives of service to others (to recall one of the three selfhood questions) and to discover self-fulﬁlment in doing so. It could lead them to ﬁnd again in human relationships of commitment and love that identity they so desperately pursue. To call people to be true to themselves recognizes that in some way people are not found ordinarily in alignment with themselves. The widespread phenomenon of ‘extended adolescence’ in contemporary Western culture signiﬁes that there is perhaps a greater difﬁculty in the quest for the self than was experienced in the past; a greater dissatisfaction with the answers on offer, given the disappearance of traditional ‘horizons of signiﬁcance’; and a greater unwillingness to ‘settle down’ and be more shaped by the expectations of a less ﬂexible set of relationships. Therefore, the promise of a return to an uncorrupted ideal 30 Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 82. 31 His identiﬁcation of authenticity as a key term for contemporary thinking about the good has the support of cultural analyst David Boyle. There has been, Boyle claims, a wholesale cultural shift, even in the decade since Taylor’s book was published, towards ‘the real’, or ‘the authentic’. This is not just played out in thinking about the self, but also in consumer patterns, political concerns and leisure activities. And real/authentic, according to Boyle, has come to indicate ‘ethical’, rooted in the past, honest, natural, simple, unspun and, above all, human. Taylor is perceptive, even prescient, in seeing that this idea is a potent one for contemporary people. Perhaps the rediscovery of authenticity as an ethical discourse has begun to take place. (David Boyle, Authenticity: Brands, Fakes, Spin and the Lust for Real Life (London: Harper Perennial, 2004), p. 283.)

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

25

of authenticity is an appealing notion. Yet this is part of the difﬁculty with the ideal of authenticity that Taylor never quite confronts: where exactly is the pure version of authenticity to be found in the tradition to which he appeals? Taylor’s method appeals to the history of ideas rather than (as in Kant) to abstract universal principles; but can he point to a moment in the tradition when authenticity was held apart from the other ideas that corrupt it? Neither Rousseau nor Herder is held as an example of the kind of thinker who was able to deliver an uncorrupted vision of authenticity. Taylor’s history of the roots of authenticity never quite traces a pre-lapsarian instance. There is never an ideal of authenticity not intertwined with other ideas that make it less than what he wants it to be. In which case, the suspicion arises that perhaps authenticity is inseparable from those corrupting inﬂuences that Taylor decries; and it makes Taylor’s use of the word ‘retrieval’ rather suspect. A further question arises from a passage I cited earlier: I can ﬁnd fulﬁlment in God, or a political cause, or tending the earth. Indeed . . . we will ﬁnd genuine fulﬁlment only in something like this, which has signiﬁcance independent of us or our desires.32 The way in which Taylor lists the possibilities for orientating the self to some greater reality than the self suggests that these are interchangeable;33 that, once again, a choice (perhaps even subconsciously) may be made as to which greater reality one prefers: the result will be the same. If this is the case, don’t these inescapable horizons become merely projections of the self, however much we might feel that they are ‘given’ or ‘inescapable’? Can Christian theology – or any other religious discourse, for that matter – really accept an ideal that speaks of God as a possibility interchangeable with others? And further: in Taylor’s vision, are the horizons of signiﬁcance themselves open to question? Are there any ‘inauthentic’ horizons? What criteria could be suggested for determining their legitimacy?34 The problem becomes particularly evident when we consider – as Salman Rushdie does – the question of religiously motivated terrorism (in his view, closely related to martyrdom). Clearly, suicide bombers considers themselves in view of a horizon of signiﬁcance, and ﬁnd what they think is self-fulﬁlment in their self-transcendent cause in the imagining, planning and carrying out of unspeakable horrors. Yet they could be said, in Taylor’s terms, to be acting more authentically than many self-determining secular Westerners do. Taylor does not acknowledge that horizons of signiﬁcance are not merely given but received; which is to say, horizons themselves could be subject to evaluation

32 Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 82. 33 Alternatively, perhaps it suggests that these horizons are all different names for the same thing, or at least overlapping terms naming the one greater reality. 34 The problem will always tend to arise if theology is treated as an addendum (in McFadyen’s term, as ‘Post-It™ label theology’) to philosophy. (Alistair I. McFadyen, Bound to Sin: Abuse, Holocaust, and the Christian Doctrine of Sin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 12.)

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

26

or even modiﬁcation (which in practice occurs in most religious systems). The distance between the horizon and the self is susceptible to interpretation (e.g. it is claimed that the terrorists of 11 September 2001 practised a distorted form of Islam). From another point of view we may ask whether Taylor’s conception of authenticity allows the possibility that a person who is rejected by his community – even condemned to death by its members – might be living in complete authenticity. The factor of recognition by others, which in ordinary circumstances is a consideration which prevents the subject from mere self-interestedness, may in fact exclude the ﬁgure of the prophet – which is to say, that one who calls a community to a more authentic realization of its own identity. This one of course plays a deadly game. It is certainly the case that, for their part, true Christian martyrs are not disloyal citizens (a case I shall put more strongly in Chapters 4 and 5). In fact, the opposite is true; yet they stand (like Christ) under the condemnation of their societies. Taylor’s retrieved ethics of authenticity attempt to overcome, simultaneously, both the moral problem of self-centredness and the rational difﬁculty in self-determining freedom. The authentic self ought to be characterized by a reﬂexive self-awareness and originality, but also ought to be performed against horizons of signiﬁcance and in dialogue with others. In this way, Taylor hopes to counter the charge of individualism, and yet also to avoid an unreﬂective traditionalism or collectivism. At ﬁrst glance it may seem as if the Christian martyr could ﬁnd Taylor’s platform amenable: she has her own horizon of signiﬁcance and, up to a point, her dialogue with others; she is aware of a self-transcendent reality. However, it is a stage of somewhat unstable construction, as we have seen. Not just any horizon of signiﬁcance will do.

C

Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses

In Rushdie’s controversial novel The Satanic Verses,35 the possibility of religious martyrdom is critiqued speciﬁcally from the point of view of the themes of identity and selfhood. Though Rushdie puts forward a large ﬁeld of valid means of construing the self, a martyred self does not sit within its range. In his ﬁction – but also in his non-ﬁction – Rushdie is highly critical of the notion that an individual’s identity might be authentically conditioned by the possibility of martyrdom. Identifying with the old certainties of nationalism-blendedwith-religion in a world of constant and rapid change and shifting boundaries is a disastrous and destructive strategy. It is a-rational behaviour that puts the subject’s identity dangerously beyond challenge and so isolates him from the potential for personal growth and change. Rather, Rushdie enjoins each individual to give birth to his or her identity by means of the trial and error of experience. In terms of the three aspects of selfhood that were suggested in Chapter 1, Rushdie cannot see the coherence of a self narrated in terms of 35 Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses (London: Vintage, 2006). (Originally published in 1989.)

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

27

martyrdom, is critical of the account of the good it gives, and complains that it has the potential to destroy rather than help others. As I shall show, in the contorted plot of The Satanic Verses, Rushdie describes the wrestle of his characters with their own identities. In doing so, he addresses the increasing need of groups to demarcate themselves more clearly (‘identity politics’) and the place of religion in such identiﬁcations. The ﬂuidity of identity, in life and in death, is something individuals must come to terms with in the context of massive worldwide social change. Rushdie well recognizes the religious sources of this crisis of identity: when deity as a horizon of transcendence has become problematic, then the individual is left having to seek a new way of understanding herself and her context. Inevitably, Rushdie raises the question of what the most courageous and authentically human way to die is, given that martyrdom is evidence not of a glorious sacriﬁce but of a dangerous, oppressive and inherently destructive mindset. I will contend that Rushdie’s intellectual instruments are not ﬁne-tuned enough to give a coherent account of the Christian self he so sweepingly rejects, and that his own account of selfhood and identity raises its own difﬁculties. i. ‘Identity politics’ and religion: what kind of idea are you? The act that begins the narrative of The Satanic Verses is a sadly familiar (even presciently described) piece of religious terrorism. A group of Sikh fanatics have hijacked an airliner and its passengers, the Boeing 747 Bostan. Tavleen, their female leader, is heard saying to her colleague as she executes a hostage:

Martyrdom is a privilege . . . We shall be like the stars; like the sun.36 Even though her fellow terrorists ﬁght against her, in the end it is Tavleen who explodes the bomb as they ﬂy over the English Channel, ‘and the walls come tumbling down’:37 she herself is killed and the plane destroyed; and as the two protagonists, Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha, fall towards the earth, the frenetic and bizarre narrative is strangely propelled. Famously, Salman Rushdie’s ﬁction both represents and expresses the clash of religious and secular world-views.38 At its publication, The Satanic Verses provoked outrage from Muslims, culminating in the Ayatollah Khomeini issuing a fatwa against the author. The book – commonly considered not Rushdie’s best work – is a fascinating self-fulﬁlling prophecy: an attack on fanaticism and revealed religion which itself becomes the focus for fanaticism.39 The novel itself is a thinly veiled attack on the very kind of murderous religious zeal that 36 Ibid., p. 86. 37 Ibid., p. 87. A reference to the suicide of Samson in Judges 16, though curiously using the words of a spiritual song about Joshua (‘Joshua fought the battle of Jericho . . .’). 38 As Talal Asad notes, the book is itself ‘a political act’ (Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), p. 270). 39 This vehement response to Rushdie was reafﬁrmed in July 2007 after he was awarded a knighthood.

28

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

was directed towards its author after its publication.40 Though Rushdie took aim at the excesses of Sikhs and Christians in the book (and has attacked Hindu extremism in others of his works), Muslims were right to feel that they were its chief target, especially given the extended passages that threw into question the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed.41 However, it would be a mistake to characterize Rushdie as merely an anti-religious zealot. Discussion of religion naturally emanates from that consideration of what might be called ‘identity politics’, which is deeply entrenched in his work.42 Rushdie is witness to a world in which personal and communal identities are constantly shifting against a backdrop of massive and rapid historical, cultural and political change. The drawing of borders on maps has enormous – sometimes enormously destructive – consequences for individuals on the ground and how they identify themselves (the partition of India described in Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children43 being but one example). It is a world of immigrants and exiles, who are no longer at home and yet deeply homesick. This ﬂuidity of identity is experienced with delight by some Western individualists; yet is easy to see how this ‘freedom’ is also frequently experienced as anxiety.44 Those who are in situations where they are (or feel themselves to be) on the outer as a minority, or perhaps as a disempowered majority, struggle to ﬁnd the capacity to assert their identities alongside those given more easy access to a satisfactory identity. In the midst of this ﬂux, the question that Rushdie’s characters ask of one another, themselves and even of God is ‘what kind of idea are you’?45 40 The Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses was indeed assassinated. 41 Talal Asad (1993: 239ff) gives an intriguing account of the developing controversy: the variety of ways in which Muslim hurt was expressed, and the rhetorical strategies used by Rushdie and others of more liberal bent to invalidate this hurt. 42 ‘Identity politics is the political activity of various social movements for self-determination. It claims to represent and seek to advance the interests of particular groups in society, the members of which often share and unite around common experiences of actual or perceived social injustice, relative to the wider society of which they form part. In this way, the identity of the oppressed group gives rise to a political basis around which they then unite.’ (Cressida Heyes, ‘identity politics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato. stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/identity-politics/ (accessed 13 Oct. 2009) This deﬁnition demonstrates how important one’s perceived victimhood is for identity in the contemporary epoch. 43 Salman Rushdie, Midnight’s Children (London: Cape, 1981). 44 Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, pp. 42–7. 45 In his essay, ‘Identity and religion of the status quo: The Rushdie affair in the West’, Andrew Aghapour claims that, in The Satanic Verses, Rushdie outlines three types of ‘identity formation’: the ‘religious’, the ‘secular’ and the ‘postmodern’. Aghapour deﬁnes the religious in terms of traditional assignations of identity according to some transcendent ground; the secular is an identity that is utterly rational; and the postmodern (so-called) is seen in terms of ‘individual agency’. In Aghapour’s reading, then, Rushdie clearly favours the postmodern over the other two. This a badly drafted typology, however: the secular identity scarcely appears at all in the novel (as Aghapour deﬁnes it) and whether ‘postmodern’ is the most enlightening term for the identity Rushdie favours is extremely dubious. In fact, even Aghapour has to admit that Rushdie’s strident critique – in blatantly moral terms – of the religious identity is

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

29

ii. The unstable self and the unstable deity As the characters discover, there is no ready answer to this question – much as they would like there to be one. Having miraculously – magically – survived the air disaster, Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha ﬁnd themselves transformed. Gibreel begins to resemble an angel, while Saladin grows hairy legs and horns. And yet it isn’t possible to apply to them a simple moral category such as ‘good’ or ‘evil’. Both Gibreel as a Bollywood movie star and Saladin as ‘the man of a thousand voices’ (a professional voice-over man) had in their former lives been in the business of taking on and performing other identities; and yet now they ﬁnd the experience of continually shifting in shape and identity simultaneously liberating and alarming. Saladin and Gibreel wrestle with their new circumstances and with each other. Gibreel, increasingly prone to psychotic visions and dreams, tracks down his former lover, the mountaineer Allie Cone. For his part, feeling abandoned by Gibreel, Saladin pursues the path of revenge against him, and sabotages his relationship with Allie. Gibreel responds with forgiveness, and, in a tumultuous episode, even saves Saladin from incineration. In the novel’s ﬁnal phase both return to India, where Gibreel, in a fury of deranged jealousy, kills Allie and then himself. Saladin, having been forgiven by Gibreel, ﬁnds also the sweetness of reconciliation with his estranged father. Large, rambling sections of the novel are taken up with the dream vision sequences that emanate from the disturbed mind of Gibreel Farishta – a device that enables Rushdie to treat a variety of topics. The controversial part of the book is a dreamed retelling of the life of Mohammed (called by an obscure variant name, ‘Mahound’). Its focal point is the episode of the ‘Satanic Verses’, in which Mahound ﬁrst makes some polytheistic pronouncements, but later recants this revelation as Satanic. Further, one of Mahound’s companions claims that he has introduced alterations into part of the Qur’an as it was narrated to him by Mahound, to see if Mahound will notice (which he doesn’t).46 Rushdie puts these words in the mouth of Rekha Merchant in a vision Gibreel has later in the novel:

‘This notion of separation of functions, light versus dark, evil versus good, may be straightforward enough in Islam . . . but go back a bit and you see that it’s a pretty recent fabrication. Amos, eight century BC, at odds with what may be termed a postmodern critique. Rushdie’s analysis of identity and selfhood is contemporary (and in that sense perhaps postmodern) in that it is situated in the contemporary experiences of religious violence and of the massive movements of people-groups across the globe. However, it is also solidly rooted in the Enlightenment and in the liberalism of the mid-twentieth century. There are echoes, too, of existentialism in Rushdie’s celebration of the individual forging his identity in the teeth of circumstances, and especially death. Rushdie is perhaps a postmodern narrator, but he is no Foucauldian. The self in Rushdie is unsettled and unstable, but certainly not decentred. (Andrew Aghapour, ‘Identity and religion of the status quo: The Rushdie affair in the West’, Chrestomathy, 4 (2005), pp. 1–18.) 46 Rushdie did not invent this episode. It is an ancient variant tradition of which he read while he was an undergraduate at Cambridge. (Salman Rushdie, Step across this Line: Collected Non-Fiction 1992–2002 (London: Vintage, 2003), pp. 249–50.)

30

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

asks: “Shall there be evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it?” Also Jahweh, quoted by Deutero-Isaiah two hundred years later, remarks: “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.” It isn’t until the Book of Chronicles, merely fourth century BC, that the word shaitan is used to mean a being, and not only an attribute of God.’47 This is a rather unlikely bit of biblical scholarship (which takes on the tone of an encyclopaedia entry); but it illustrates what for Rushdie is so problematic in the religious world-view. It is impossible for the believer to be certain that the voice that she is hearing is that of the divinity and not that of some more sinister force; or that the God in whom she believes is not somehow to be found in two guises in any case. Rushdie intimates that the religious believer has to accept either that good and evil are both committed by the same God, or that this God is not truly (or even actually) God in the way that the monotheist religions have imagined. The point is to ask the believer in a divine speech, can you tell that it is the voice of an angel you are hearing and not the voice of a devil? And what is, in fact, the difference in any case, since both are servants of God? Are not the voices of both just pieces of divine ventriloquism? It is a way of proposing, by means of a rather cheeky analogia entis, that the lack of stability in the identity of the human subject is analagous to an unsettling (to say the least) variance in the divine identity.48 Revealed religion is problematic not only because the discernment of the divine voice is so subjective, but because the discernment of one’s own true voice is also inherently problematic. After all, ‘When a man is unsure of his essence, how may he know if he be good or bad?’49 In which case, how can he know it of God? iii. Victimhood as identity In the latter part of the twentieth century – which, for much of the world, has been the ‘post-colonial’ era – self-identity has frequently been established by means of the telling of an emancipatory narrative about one’s group. As Rowan Williams puts it:

in the complex political situation of our century, it [i.e. an ‘adversarial moment’] sometimes appears to be the dominant motif in the discovery or appropriation of selfhood: I discover who or what I am by the discovery of myself as victim, stripped of my ‘true’ identity by some other. My interest must be articulated by denial and revolt, by a distancing from 47 Rushdie, The Satanic Verses, p. 323. 48 As Gibreel asks about God at one point: ‘What kind of idea is he? What kind am I?’ (ibid., p. 110). There is a reversal of this Rushdiean dialectic in theology from Augustine through to Calvin and beyond. For example, Calvin opens the Institutes with two short chapters: ‘[W]ithout knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God’ and ‘[W]ithout knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self’ (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), I.i.1–2, p. 35.) 49 Rushdie, The Satanic Verses, p. 192.

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

31

the other’s deﬁnition of the linguistic ﬁeld. Hence what we might call the ‘separatist moment’ in all twentieth-century liberationist movements, racial, gender-based and so on. I/we am/are not what you have taught us to be and to believe; to be what we truly are, we must reject your account of reality and overturn what it privileges (European rationality, pale pigmentation, masculine bias in language, heterosexual coupling).50 What Williams rightly discerns (and, with Rushdie, critiques) is the perceived need for identity to be won through some kind of struggle, an ‘adversarial moment’ or a ‘separatist moment’. Identity is won (a crucial verb) by means of a – violent, if need be – negation of another’s identiﬁcation of you and your group. This push to occupy the moral high ground of victimhood is even observable among those groups usually considered to be established and in power (witness the grievances of Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, for example: a white male who felt himself disenfranchised by his own government in favour of what are traditionally held to be minorities). If it is to be authentic, the kind of idea I am (or we are) is not the idea that others have of me (or us); and negotiation with this deﬁnition is scarcely possible. Rather, it must be fought against and defeated. Religion is of course a volatile ingredient in this assertion of self-identity, offering, as it tends to do, a transcendent ground (a potential ‘horizon of signiﬁcance’) for the identity of the group and its ties to land; and also a view of providence which promises the historical fulﬁlment of the aspirations of a people – frequently in contrast to those who threaten that fulﬁlment.51 Religious and national identities do not neatly coincide, and religious groupings may transcend national borders or provide a division within them. However, the strength of religious identity is for Rushdie the reason why it is so dangerous.52 He has written: [I]n India, as elsewhere in our darkening world, religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of ‘respect’. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion’s dreaded name? How well, with what fatal results, religion erects totems, and how willing we are to kill for them!53 Rushdie here expresses frustration, not only with the ‘poison in the blood’, but with the usual late-modern liberal strategy of toleration of religious beliefs. It is no good insisting that religious beliefs are undebatable and that they exist in some untouchable private realm of faith apart from public discourse when the consequences of religious belief manifest themselves with such ‘fatal 50 Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000b), p. 242. 51 We will address these themes in Chapter 5. 52 Taylor, of course, gives a much more paciﬁc account of the relation of religious beliefs for the self’s authenticity. 53 Rushdie, Step across this Line, p. 403.

32

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

results’. It is a failure of the secular nerve to think this way. The religions and the identities that they foster ought to be exposed to critique, even satire – for example, by (with no little comedy) casting doubt on the purity of the divine word to the Prophet. In this way Rushdie is self-consciously casting himself as iconoclast, the smasher of the totems, an anti-prophet. He is also the bringer of enlightenment to ‘our darkening world’. It is not an accidentally chosen metaphor. iv. The ‘open’ identity Rushdie’s novel offers the kind of critique of religious self-identity that he himself urges. Identifying oneself according to the traditional patterns – accepting the given designation of yourself according to the old forms – is for him a lazy and inauthentic option. It is merely an acceptance of the heteronomous agency of another, even if it is cast in an emancipatory outline: that is, accepting Islam (or any other religious faith) for your self, even though it is outwardly in deﬁance of the secularism of the former colonial masters of the West, is merely exchanging one form of self-slavery for another. Rather, as Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha discover in The Satanic Verses, the answer to the question ‘what kind of idea are you?’ is best left ambiguous and ﬂuid, for from the ﬂux something genuinely new might emerge. As Rushdie wrote himself of the novel:

Standing at the centre of the novel is a group of characters most of whom are British Muslims, or not particularly religious persons of Muslim background, struggling with just the sort of great problems that have arisen to surround the book, problems of hybridization and ghettoization, of reconciling the old and the new. Those who oppose the novel most vociferously today are of the opinion that intermingling with a different culture will inevitably weaken and ruin their own. I am of the opposite opinion. The Satanic Verses celebrates hybridity, impurity, intermingling, the transformation that comes of new and unexpected combinations of human beings, cultures, ideas, politics, movies, songs. It rejoices in mongrelization and fears the absolutism of the Pure. Mélange, hotchpotch, a bit of this and a bit of that is how newness enters the world. It is the great possibility that mass migration gives the world, and I have tried to embrace it. The Satanic Verses is for change-by-fusion, change-by-conjoining. It is a love-song to our mongrel selves.54 For his part, Gibreel with his revelations apparently from above becomes resistant to any personal growth or change, and descends further into his psychosis. Convinced that he is an angel, he becomes destructive even of those he loves, and ultimately of himself. On the other hand, Saladin develops his identity through a process of responding to the world as he encounters and experiences it. For Rushdie, then, the individual’s personal struggle to build his or her identity is preferable to the more straightforward reliance on traditional, 54 Salman Rushdie, ‘In good faith’, in Imaginary Homelands (London: Granta, 1991), pp. 393–414 (p. 394).

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

33

religious categories. Gibreel’s receptiveness to the transcendent – his ‘faith’, we might say – isolates him from reality with catastrophic results. v. The problem of martyrdom and identity In martyrdom, victimhood and religious self-identity are combined in a potentially lethal way: it is not an accident that Rushdie opens his novel with the act of a person claiming martyrdom for herself. He has elsewhere written: ‘[O]nly fanatics go looking for martyrdom.’55 It is for him an inauthentic and dangerous way to establish one’s own identity. It is a cheap grab for victimhood which leaves only a legacy of vengeance. In the chapter entitled ‘Ayesha’, Gibreel has a vision that he, as an angel, carries ‘the Imam’ – a character strongly resembling the Ayatollah Khomeini – back to the capital city of Desh. Gibreel notices the streets swarming with people, converging in a regular pattern upon a grand avenue leading towards the palace of the Empress (who echoes the hated Shah of Iran, deposed by the Islamic revolution of 1979). The people march in their hundreds towards the gates of the palace:

Seventy at a time, they come into range; the guns babble, and they die, and then the next seventy climb over the bodies of the dead, the guns giggle once again, and the hill of the dead grows higher. Those behind it commence, in their turn, to climb. In the dark doorways of the city there are mothers with covered heads, pushing their beloved sons in to the parade, go, be a martyr, do the needful, die. ‘You see how they love me,’ says the disembodied voice. ‘No tyranny on earth can withstand the power of this slow, walking love.’56 This scene of ‘slow, walking love’ is viscerally awful, especially from the point of view of a secular individualist like Rushdie: the ﬁlmic quality of the narration adds to the revulsion that the reader must feel. That the mothers approve of the death march adds to its horror – horror that people could be so possessed of an irrational desire to self-destruct. For his part, Gibreel lamely suggests to the Imam that they are in fact driven not by love of him, but rather by hatred for the Empress: a revolutionary zeal in other words, rather than a religious devotion. The Imam replies: They love me . . . because I am water. I am fertility and she is decay. They love me for my habit of smashing clocks. Human beings who turn away from God lose love, and certainty, and also the sense of His boundless time, that encompasses past, present and future; the timeless time, that 55 Rushdie, Step across this Line, p. 240. In this article, entitled ‘Messages from the plague years’, Rushdie claims that he has no desire to be a martyr for his own cause; rather, he expresses a desperation to live and to continue writing. He stayed true to his convictions despite the enormous inconveniences over many years. Is it so hard to imagine that if he were asked to recant down the barrel of a gun, he would refuse? What he evidently means by ‘martyr’ in this instance is one who seeks death qua death, rather than one who seeks to speak and enact the truth and accepts the possible consequences. 56 Rushdie, The Satanic Verses, p. 213–14.

34

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

has no need to move. We long for the eternal, and I am eternity. She is nothing: a tick, or a tock.57 The religious emphasis on the transcendent, in other words, enables the appalling scene before us, because it holds out the promise of something even more substantial than one’s own life. It promises a substance more solid than the power of empires, which come and go with the ebb and ﬂow of history. The cost of offering oneself to the Imam – life itself – is nothing compared with the reward that he promises.58 Rushdie acknowledges that martyrs make very effective soldiers, far more effective than those whom tyrants and dictators employ. However, for him the promise rings false. Martyrdom in Rushdie’s account is a perversion of the idea of love. It perverts love because, rather than accepting the momentary temporal instance of bonding with another human being, it has pretensions to eternity. It is a love that is not therefore free, but rather is bound by some unthinking and irrational delusion. It is a love which depends on hatred (we the readers scarcely believe the Imam’s denial of this) – there must be those who are not loved as much as those who are. The ﬁre of this devotion consumes all in its path. vi. The knowledge of good and evil The problem, for Rushdie, apart from the savagery that he sees as the outcome of this way of thinking, is (as I have already suggested – see ‘The unstable self and the unstable deity’ above) a problem of subjectivity: how does one know that what is experienced as a revelation from God is in fact just that – from God? And, even if one is certain within oneself that one identiﬁes such an experience, is it possible, or even desirable, to move from that subjective particularity to a universal declaration in the way the great religions do? Good and evil are perhaps not so easily distinguished as the religious traditions have thought; it is not so easily a case of ‘us’ and ‘them’. The victim mentality, which accuses the other of evil on a diabolic scale, ignores the evil within; it does not admit the possibility of its own complicity in evil. Victims are also perpetrators, though this is an unpalatable truth; and this means that causes cannot be pursued in expectation of some triumphal, ﬁnal vindication. ‘Evil’ and ‘good’ form a complex web in which human beings and communities are entangled with one another, violently and fatally so. This tragic confusion of good and evil is intensiﬁed in the novel’s eighth chapter, ‘The Parting of the Arabian Sea’. Gibreel this time dreams of an ill-fated pilgrimage of the villagers of Titlipur, led by the mystical and mysterious girl Ayesha. The events of this part of the narrative are based on a real incident which occurred in 1983: thirty-eight Shi’ites marched into Hawke’s Bay in Karachi, Pakistan, at the instigation of their spiritual guide, who had taught them that the sea would part as in the days of the Exodus, enabling them to journey to the holy city of Kerbala, in Iraq.59 In The Satanic Verses, 57 Ibid., p. 214. 58 In Chapter 6 we will raise again the issue of heavenly rewards. 59 The tragic story is told in Akbar S. Ahmed, ‘Death in Islam: The Hawke’s Bay case’, Man, 21(1) (1986), pp. 120–34.

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

35

Ayesha, strangely surrounded by butterﬂies which are interpreted as some kind of divine sign, determines to reach Mecca by marching through the Arabian Sea. Mirza Saeed tries to persuade his very ill wife, Mishal, to abandon the pilgrimage, but, like most of the devotees, she will not be swayed despite her declining physical condition. Even the deaths of several elderly pilgrims have little effect: they are now called ‘martyrs’ by Ayesha. Increasingly, Ayesha’s fanaticism makes her more and more tyrannical and brutal, condoning the stoning to death of an abandoned baby as ‘the Devil’s Child’ out of religious fervour. Mirza Saeed can only look on helplessly as his wife and her companions stride into the sea and are drowned; or, at least, that is what Mirza himself witnesses. Others present, more devout than he, claim that the sea does in fact miraculously open as prophesied by Ayesha. Rushdie, with his self-consciously postmodern narrative technique, appears to relish the ambiguity: the miracle both did and did not happen, and it ‘happened’ in a dream sequence in any case. But it is not the triumphalist, miraculous and religious version of events that we the readers are inclined to believe. The tragedy is as much the willingness of the faithful to ignore the death of the naïve and the innocent. It takes religious fanaticism – the ‘eyes of faith’ – to make a sign of divine benevolence out of such willful self-destruction; and Rushdie despairs of ever convincing those who look with such eyes on the world. Those who would be, and would have, martyrs are (as far as he is concerned) beyond the pale. vii. An authentic way to die? If martyrdom is a way of dying that is indicative of an impoverished or inauthentic conception of one’s identity, then is there an authentic way to die? In the moving Chapter IX, ‘The Wonderful Lamp’, Saladin (now renamed Salahuddin) returns to India to the deathbed of his father, Changez Chamchawala, and the two men are sweetly reconciled. As he watches his father die, Salahuddin thinks to himself

He is teaching me how to die . . . He does not avert his eyes, but looks death right in the face. At no point in his dying did Changez Chamchawala speak the name of God.60 This scene, apparently drawing on Rushdie’s own reconciliation with his father,61 stands out among all the death and mayhem in the novel as the noblest way of dying and the clearest acceptance of the reality of death as it is. There is no frightened appeal to God, but, rather, a courageous face-to-face with death. But there is more to the episode: in the very moment of his father’s death, Salahuddin notices the ‘dawning of a terror’ on his face: ‘What was it that waited for him, for all of us, that brought such fear to a brave man’s eyes?’ However, at the end, when he contemplates his father’s dead body, he ﬁnds him 60 Rushdie, The Satanic Verses, p. 531. 61 See Paul Brians, The Unity of the Satanic Verses – Notes on Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses, www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/unity.html (accessed 5 May 2006).

36

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

to be smiling. Rushdie admits here that death is terrible and terrifying. There is a genuine agnosticism presented here: a question rather than answer as to what lies beyond death. The courage of Changez in staring death in the face does not lesson death’s horror, but his bravery is at least an acknowledgement of the reality of death. He does not seek by some shadowy faith to elude it. Salahuddin then has a tense encounter with the mullah who has come to dress the body with holy clothes. Somehow they seem inauthentic to the death that his father has died. In the aftermath of his father’s death, he reconnects with his former lover Zeeny Vakil. As the narrator comments: Zeeny’s re-entry into his life completed the process of renewal, of regeneration, that had been the most surprising and paradoxical product of his father’s terminal illness. His old English life, its bizarreries, its evils, now seemed very remote, even irrelevant, like his truncated stage-name. ‘About time,’ Zeeny approved when he told her of his return to Salahuddin. ‘Now you can stop acting at last.’ Yes, this looked like the start of a new phase, in which the world would be solid and real, and in which there was no longer the broad ﬁgure of a parent standing between himself and the inevitability of the grave. An orphaned life, like Muhammad’s; like everyone’s. A life illuminated by a strangely radiant death, which continued to glow, in his mind’s eye, like a sort of magic lamp.62 The death of his father proves fertile for his own growing sense of identity, a ‘strangely radiant death’. It his father’s staring determinedly in the face of death that now becomes the ground for a life authentically lived, ‘solid and real’: ‘The world, somebody wrote, is the place we prove real by dying in it.’63 Salahuddin is not determined by the various traditional (religious) matrices of meaning that might be cast upon him, nor by his alien-ness to the surrounding society; and, crucially, he has found a freedom to cease acting (in the sense of ‘role-playing’) and to become his real – or, at least, his authentic – self. viii. Evaluation: Rushdie and martyrdom For Rushdie, then, martyrdom is an insufﬁcient and inauthentic basis for an understanding of oneself – or is evidence of such a basis. Apart from being morally simplistic, it represents a placing of oneself in the role of victim, which is then the grounds for later acts of violent vengeance. That is the logic of the suicide bomber. On the other hand, the shifting ﬂux of identity that his characters at ﬁrst ﬁnd so alarming is actually to be celebrated for its emancipatory signiﬁcance – not to mention its comic potential! Rushdie’s protagonists are the refugee-immigrants who do not hold slavishly to old-world mores and who are also a challenge to the xenophobia and conservatism of the host culture. They are liberated as individuals to experiment with new forms of identity instead of the identities given to them by more traditional forms: to enjoy 62 Rushdie, The Satanic Verses, p. 534. 63 Ibid., p. 531. The ‘somebody’ is British playwright Edward Bond, from his ‘Author’s Preface’ in Edward Bond, Lear (London: Methuen, 1994), p. xiv.

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

37

being ‘mongrel selves’. There is not a straightforward answer to the question ‘what kind of idea are you?’ What appear to be simple bifurcations of race, religion or even gender are now blurred in the experience of the modern world. Martyrdom, which (in Rushdie’s view) stands for the stubborn determination not to dilute identity at any cost, or at least is the violent and destructive result of that obduracy, is a bloody puriﬁcation rite. The martyr offers himself or herself as the sacriﬁce which will keep pure the identity of the community or faith he or she represents. In other words, martyrs are fundamentally conservative, demonstrating to others a kind of hyper-conformity in order to clarify and cleanse the boundaries that are under threat. By contrast, Rushdie celebrates ‘newness’: the constant crossing and recrossing of boundaries that themselves ought to be considered permeable rather than fixed. Andrew Aghapour writes: Rushdie’s existentialist morality is symptomatic of the postmodern perspective and supports a secular, constructive method of identity formation that relies primarily on individual choice.64 There is a rather slipshod application of the term ‘postmodern’ here: Rushdie’s ‘postmodernism’ is more a matter of his narrative style than anything else. However, Aghapour is right to note Rushdie’s emphasis on the individual’s struggle to self-identify against the pressure to conform to some brute, ﬁxed notion of a group identity. Rushdie is not advocating some form of complete self-determination, granted: an integral part of Saladin/Salahuddin’s journey of self-discovery is a coming to terms with the India of his past. In this way, his reconciliation with his dying father symbolizes an acceptance of the past precisely as past that is necessary for his own self-discovery. In the terms in which Rushdie accounts for both identity and martyrdom, he makes a compelling case.65 Undoubtedly, the ideal of martyrdom has been put to destructive use in a variety of religious contexts, including the Christian – especially as attached to the identity politics of victimhood. Where martyrdom has been held as an ideal there has been a tendency to localize and tribalize it: the martyr is one who dies for us, i.e. for what we already are as a people or a nation, not for some ideal or possibility which all people everywhere may be invited to imitate. The sacriﬁce of the individual to the collective identity has borne its violent fruit in abundant crop. Rushdie is certainly right to question the criteria by which horizons of signiﬁcance are received. He also recognizes the signiﬁcance of the manner of dying for the meaning of a life. Rushdie would agree that it is not enough to make the ‘horizons of signiﬁcance’ as apparently arbitrary and open as Taylor seems to allow. Not only are the martyred selves in Rushdie’s novel insufﬁciently original as selves and too submissive to the heteronomy of religious speech – a judgement with which Taylor might readily concur – they are also selves referenced against the backdrop of problematic horizons of signiﬁcance. Rushdie is hostile towards the horizons themselves: it is no good being authentic to an inauthentic horizon. 64 Aghapour, ‘Identity and religion of the status quo’, p. 10. 65 It is very much in the tradition of Nietzsche’s polemic against Christian martyrdom.

38

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

That is no better than being a hard-working thief: one’s diligence is only intelligible with reference to a way of life that is by its nature compromised and inauthentic. For Rushdie it is, in particular, the tribalism that religious revelation promotes that is the cause of senseless violence. Which is to say, the old religious horizons of signiﬁcance are too narrow for the new world. In the contemporary world of rapid change, mass emigration and global communications, the horizon of signiﬁcance must be universal or it is nothing: it is insufﬁcient to reference only one’s tribe, or even one’s nation. So, the martyred selves are, after a fashion, insufﬁciently original and too deeply bound by the matrices of traditional religion; but they are also, oddly, guilty of a rampant egotism.66 They refuse to submit to the recognition of others who do not share their ethno-religious identity to the point of mutually assured destruction. There are, however, some shortcomings with Rushdie’s version of authentic selfhood, which his rejection of all forms of martyrdom exposes. I concentrate here on two of these, and show how they are (perhaps strangely) intertwined. First, though Rushdie appears as perhaps an exotic ﬁgure in the West, and however much he critiques Western imperialism and racism, he is still very much a Western writer beholden to a Kantian liberal understanding of self-determination and individualism.67 Secondly, his critique of martyrdom in general does not apply to truly Christian martyrdoms,68 which actually then in turn stand as a question against his construal of identity, because they challenge his ideal of human fulﬁlment. Rushdie’s synthesis calls for people everywhere to hold the religious components of their traditional identities at arm’s length.69 While laudably calling for a critical interaction with one’s ‘horizons of signiﬁcance’ (in a way that Taylor seems to overlook), Rushdie would rule out a priori any religious component from these horizons. For him, rejecting the religious element (in all, perhaps, except custom or ritual) is how one’s traditional background is to be received by the individual in such a way as to allow for an authentic self-identity to emerge. That is to say, he is unable to envisage any but a baldly ﬁdeistic version of religious belief.70 By opposing faith to reason (or at least his version of 66 The charge of egotism made against martyrs is also made by Lacey Baldwin Smith, who writes with barely concealed cynicism: ‘[R]eputation stands at the heart of martyrdom’ (Lacey Baldwin Smith, Fools, Martyrs, Traitors: The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1st edn, 1997), p. 373). 67 In his own response to the Rushdie controversy, Charles Taylor observed that The Satanic Verses was, despite its exotic trappings, ‘a profoundly Western book’. He continued: ‘Rushdie’s book is comforting to the western liberal mind, which shares one feature with that of the Ayatollah Khomeini, the belief that there is nothing outside their world-view which needs deeper understanding, just a perverse reﬂection of the obviously right. To live in this difﬁcult world, the western liberal mind will have to learn to reach out more.’ (Charles Taylor, ‘The Rushdie controversy’, Public Culture, 2(1) (1989a), pp. 118–22 (122).) 68 It is beyond our competence and scope to judge whether Rushdie has been fair to Islam and Sikhism. In his work all religions are treated with some hostility; it is our task here to answer his charges only in terms of Christian martyrdom. 69 As we shall see in Chapter 5, Richard Rorty makes much the same call. 70 This was, likewise, the contention of Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensberg address of 2006.

‘WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU?’

39

it), he is readily able to dismiss faith as irrational to the point of insanity; but, of course, he does not account for the possibility that the two might not be opposites at all. Indeed, speaking at least for Christianity, there are many ways in which faith and reason have been construed as relating to each other. Rushdie posits a false dichotomy between the irrational tribalism of the religious groups on the one hand, and the more reasoned and global perspective he claims to offer on the other. For him, there seem to be only these alternatives available; and it is quite clear that the individual who sees himself as a citizen of the globe is preferable to the person whose individuality is consumed by the tribe, with its limited and primitive vision. As we have seen, this is inauthentic, but also inherently violent. And yet (and here we return to the ﬁrst of the deﬁciencies) Rushdie is far too optimistic about the degree to which his Western liberal vision is free from some of the same deﬁciencies. The society of individuals who are learning to be themselves through agonized wrestling with the conditions of rapid global change is no less guilty of blind exclusions and violent rejections. The alliances of technological and bureaucratic societies have as much blood on their hands as the more ‘regressive’ theocratic ones. Furthermore, it is by no means evident that individuals in such societies who have proclaimed themselves free of the straitjacket of faith are living the authentic and fulﬁlled lives of which Rushdie dreams.71 Though Rushdie gives an account of two characters who must respond to circumstances that prove to be beyond their control – and comically so – the most authentic characters are still those who, taking everything into account, are able to self-determine. Saladin is the model self because of the way he successfully negotiates the vicissitudes of his life following the air disaster. So, when it comes to making peace with his ethnic heritage, Saladin is able to achieve this with extreme selectivity, especially with regards to its religious elements. In the end, Rushdie’s vision of self-fulﬁlment does not escape Taylor’s critique of ‘self-determining freedom’: though the inescapable horizons of signiﬁcance are not ignored in the novel, they are strongly relativized. In Rushdie’s view, the self – at least the self with reason intact and not under the delusions of religion – still possesses the capacity to construct or narrate a meaningful identity from the materials of his or her experience, aside from a point of transcendence.

D

Conclusion

Though they operate in very different modes, both Taylor and Rushdie are signiﬁcant representatives of the attempt to put human identity/selfhood on a secular (or, at least, non-theological) footing. Taylor’s version of authenticity is an attempt to alert individuals to that which transcends them. However, his conception is too vague to account for the speciﬁc conditions that may allow for a Christian martyr; and he is apparently unable to describe how it is that a particular ‘horizon of signiﬁcance’ might actually be an inauthentic

71 Giddens (1991: 181–3) shares this diagnosis of a general anxiety in the West.

40

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

or invalid one. Rushdie, who is much more polemical and speciﬁc, treats all religious considerations as irrational almost by deﬁnition. His own version of authentic selfhood, however, begins to look very much like that governed by the ‘self-determining freedom’ that Taylor decries. His selves are authors of their own narratives. Thus: both attempts to describe a paradigm for human identity are not only problematic in their own ways but also seem deeply at odds with an identity which claims that it is authentically realized in Christian martyrdom. In the chapters that follow, I shall explore the implications for human identity that are signiﬁed by Christian martyrdom in the light of various temptations to be ‘other than I am’. This exposition will begin to address Christian identity in terms of the questions of narrative, the good and other selves.

3

The ﬁrst temptation: the temptation to security and the risk of martyrdom

A

Introduction

In the previous chapter I contended that Christian martyrdom seems (often sharply) at odds with a number of contemporary attempts to construe identity and/or selfhood – Taylor and Rushdie being the examples. Taken from this direction, martyrdom seems bewildering, even alarming: even a denial of what it is to be an authentic human self. There are questions as to its validity as a self-narration, and as to its account of the good. In this next sequence of chapters (Chapters 3–6) I turn to the study of Christian martyrdom in its scriptural and theological setting, asking also what light it sheds on human identity and selfhood. Using Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral as a lens through which to focus the theme, will take each of the temptations of Archbishop Thomas I as an opportunity for inquiry into the nature of Christian martyrdom. It should be noted that these are temptations and not merely alternative arguments: they are offers of alternative ways of living human life that claim to be more attractive and more virtuous as well as simply more true. They are different ways of self-narrating, of describing the good, and of relating the self to other selves. An exposition of the text of the play in the case of each Tempter helps us to sharpen the question that he puts and discover its real appeal as a temptation. In each of the ﬁrst three temptations I will rearticulate the temptation in a different mode with the help of particular conversation partners: Martha C. Nussbaum, Richard Rorty and Roger Scruton. In the case of the fourth, in which the glory of martyrdom itself becomes the temptation, a number of thinkers provide assistance. This strategy goes to show that the temptation is not a dramatic device only (and therefore the concern of literary criticism only) but a matter of some existential force. The attractiveness of each alternative is tangible; its evasion is not straightforward. Christian martyrs renounce such temptations in favour of another way of seeing themselves. Their identity is to be construed otherwise. The ways in which this identity is shaped will be given consideration from the point of 41

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

42

view of its normative theological source in the canon of Christian Scripture. Further, I shall keep in view the early ‘martyr-acts’ in which the Scriptural texts were ‘enacted’, and seek assistance in the theological works of Augustine and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, among others. As we shall see, the act of renunciation is performed as a witness to, and in imitation of, Christ, and thus involves the martyr in a close identiﬁcation of himself with this other self, emerging from his union with Christ. This is the identity that arises from his choice of martyrdom – as he subordinates his acting and willing (and more besides) to the divine will and deed.

B

Scripture and the martyrs

A word as to the hermeneutic deployed is needed. The early martyr-acts and the patristic discussions of martyrdom are drenched in scriptural references and allusions. This was possible and meaningful because (despite the variety of methods of interpretation used) the Scriptures were held to be a unity cohering in Christ, the one whose death provided the template for Christian martyrdom. The texts of Scripture had particular import for these individuals facing a terrible death, and, as it is reported, gave them particular inspiration and solace.1 This was (and remains) a ‘performance’ of the Scriptures par excellence. This notion of ‘performing the Scriptures’ has been highlighted in an inﬂuential essay by Nicholas Lash.2 Lash begins from the rather obvious point that the reading or interpretation of a text depends largely on the kind of text being used: ‘different kinds of text call for different kinds of reading’.3 To read some texts – in particular, those texts which are ‘works of art’ – does require the assistance of experts; however, the role of experts in reading texts, while indispensable, is subordinate. Their expert ‘reading’ is not the fundamental form of interpretation. Rather, ‘there are at least some texts that only begin to deliver their meaning in so far as they are “brought into play” through interpretative performance’.4 1 Brad S. Gregory says the same about the martyrs of the Reformation era, across the denominational divides. Martyrdom meant ‘conformity to an ancient course of action, grounded in scripture and epitomized in the cruciﬁxion of Christ himself’ (Brad S. Gregory, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 119). 2 Nicholas Lash, ‘Performing the scriptures’, in Theology on the Way to Emmaus (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005). Brian Brock (2007) offers a similar approach in using the metaphor of singing: singing becomes for Brock a paradigm of what it means to engage with Scripture on Scripture’s own terms, as a text which is the locus of more than merely human activities. See also my review –Michael P. Jensen, Review of Brian Brock, Singing the Ethos of God, Anvil, 25 (1) (2008), pp. 68–9. For his part, Lash’s student Kevin Vanhoozer has made an extensive development of his suggestion. See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster: John Knox Press, 2005). See also my review: Michael P. Jensen, ‘Review of Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine’, Anvil, 24(3) (2007b), pp. 227–8. 3 Lash, ‘Performing the scriptures’, p. 38. 4 Ibid., p. 41.

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

43

Having used King Lear and a Beethoven score as examples, Lash now applies his insight to the NT, suggesting that ‘the fundamental form of the Christian interpretation of Scripture is the life, activity and organisation of the believing community’.5 Christian practice can properly be described as ‘interpretative action’ – a performance of the texts, in other words. This performance, in its turn, is an enactment of the conviction that the best (‘best’ because most appropriate to the text in question) reading of these texts is as the story of Jesus, human beings and God. The performative interpretation of Scripture can also be called ‘Christian discipleship’. Lash allows that performances may differ over history, as circumstances change; but though the story may be told differently, it cannot be a different story if it is to be a performance of this text. The original meaning of the text gives an appropriate constraint to later performances of it. This points to an important difference between Scripture and King Lear, which has to do with history. The NT self-consciously adheres to particular past events. Its original meaning was not merely that Jesus Christ was representative of certain fundamental human virtues, but that he was one man ‘in whom the mystery of divine action is seen to have been embodied and disclosed’.6 So, for Lash, to suppose that we could render an authentic performance of the NT utterly disconnected from the historical would be to tell a different story from the one the NT itself tells. Lash goes on: ‘for the practice of Christianity, the performance of the biblical text, to be true . . . must be not only “true to life”, but “true to his [i.e. Christ’s] life”; and not only “true to his life”, but “true to God”’.7 Martyrdom, as an expression of Christian discipleship in excelsis, is therefore a performance of Scripture as a witness to Jesus as the Son of God and Lord of all. Hence, Scripture ought to have particular prominence and authority in any theological account of martyrdom. More than this: a reading of the canonical Scriptures which highlights their salvation-historical – and so Christological – shape is the appropriate complement to the subject at hand, because theological reﬂection on martyrdom has always cast itself as imitative of, and indeed generated by, the death of Jesus Christ. This means that typological readings will have a particular (though not singular) prominence in this discussion. Hans Frei, among others, has served to rehabilitate ﬁgurative or typological reading as a necessary component of Biblical hermeneutics in recent decades.8 Building on the work of literary scholar Eric Auerbach, Frei argued that the Bible points to its own unity and inner coherence by inviting ﬁgural interpretation. In Auerbach’s terms: 5 6 7 8

Ibid., p. 42. Ibid., p. 45. Ibid. The German-speaking world was ahead of developments in Anglophone scholarship in this regard. Eichrodt notes that ‘a new awakening’ of interest in hermeneutics, including typology, had begun already in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. (Walter Eichrodt, ‘Is typological exegesis an appropriate method?’, in Claus Westermann (ed.), Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (London: SCM Press, 1963), pp. 224– 45 (224).)

44

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Figural interpretation establishes a connection between two events or persons in such a way that the ﬁrst signiﬁes not only itself but also the second, while second involves or fulﬁlls the ﬁrst. The two poles of a ﬁgure are separated in time, but both, being real events or persons, are within temporality. The are both contained in the ﬂowing stream which is historical life, and only the comprehension, the intellectus spiritualis, of their interdependence is a spiritual act.9 In other words, typology shows that two events or characters are part of the one connected stream of history in a way that is not necessarily obvious from mere analysis of causality. The preﬁguring of one by the other is discerned by (or, perhaps better, revealed to) the reader. In theologian Frei’s words: In ﬁgural interpretation the ﬁgure itself is real in its own place, time, and right and without any detraction from that reality it preﬁgures the reality that will fulﬁll it. This ﬁgural relation not only brings into coherent relation events in biblical narration, but allows also the ﬁtting of each present occurrence and experience into a real, narrative framework or world. Each person, each occurrence is a ﬁgure of that providential narrative in which it is also an ingredient.10 Unlike allegorical reading, typological interpretation points to the embeddedness of the events in a common narrative framework governed by providence.11 These are ‘real’ or ‘historical’ at least in the sense that they gain their meaning from a relation to divine providence – the same providential narrative in which the reader of the text then in turn ﬁnds herself.12 Typology, therefore, develops from the theological assertion that God works by theme and variations in the patterns he establishes in history.13 Furthermore, typological interpretation gains its impetus from the NT’s appropriation of the Old Testament (OT). In fact, the very existence of the NT itself depends on a typological account that reads the story of Jesus Christ as 9 Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), p. 73. 10 Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 153. 11 The great Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye, for his part, wrote: ‘Typology points to future events that are often thought of as transcending time, so that they contain a vertical lift as well as a horizontal move forward’ (Northrop Frye, The Great Code – the Bible in Literature (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1982), p. 82). Is ‘transcending’ the right verb? Typology as it is used in the NT, and as observed by Hans Frei, reconﬁgures time certainly, but doesn’t overcome or dispense with it (if that is what is meant by ‘transcending’ here). 12 This is what Frei argued had been ‘eclipsed’ in all the debates about what it was the texts referred to. 13 As Reventlow writes: ‘typology is a means of discovering structural analogies between the saving events attested by both Testaments which bridge the gap produced by our loss of a direct relationship in faith to the events of the Old Testament’ (Henning Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century (London: SCM Press, 1986), p. 25).

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

45

continuous with, and indeed the fulﬁlment of, the salvation-history narrated in the Jewish Scriptures.14 Examples of the NT writers employing typological readings are numerous; the Passion narratives in the Synoptics, for example, emphasize the correspondence and continuity of the events to signiﬁcant events in the OT. Paul makes explicit use of the word tu,poj in 1 Cor. 10.11, as he compares the church to the Israelites in the wilderness, and in Romans 5, in comparing Adam to Christ. The argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews hinges on a typological account of the Exodus and of the Tabernacle. There are, granted, signiﬁcant differences in the relationship between the types. However, in each case the rhetorical power of drawing the comparison is made more impressive by the salvation-historical link between the two events. They are related thereby to the one overarching divine plan. This observation dovetails with Lash’s proposal for a ‘performative’ reading of Scripture. The reader of Scripture is invited to see not only types of the Messiah in the OT narratives, but also then to model his own life (and death) after the pattern of the life of Christ; to read his identity in terms of the narrative of Jesus (to address the ﬁrst of our ‘selfhood questions’). The structure of shadow and fulﬁlment is not repeated in the life of the believer (the believer’s life is not the reality preﬁgured in some way by Christ); but the typological similarity – a mimesis – serves to bind the disciple into the same reality as the world of the text, within the frame of the same providential narrative.15 The text may generate not only a type of Christ but also, in a secondary way, a type of the follower of Christ. Once again, it is the common salvation-historical thread that makes this ﬁgurative reading quite distinctive. It is not merely that Christ is offered as an impressive model to be copied. His followers are, rather, to pattern their lives after him because they ﬁnd themselves connected to him as part of the one divine movement towards the world. The disciple’s performance of Christ is not only an echo of Christ’s work; it is, as Frei (1974) puts it, ‘a ﬁgure of that providential narrative in which it is also an ingredient’. It is a very part of the divine work that it imitates. This use of Scripture is particularly evident in accounts of martyrdom, both in the early Christian era and in the early modern period. In sum, therefore I attempt to read Scripture with an eye to its unfolding disclosure of a history of redemption as well as to the theological concepts that it generates.16 The experience of the disciple is read as continuous with the 14 Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics: Biblical-Theological Foundations and Principles (Nottingham: Apollos, 2006), p. 243. For von Rad: ‘One must therefore . . . really speak of a witness of the Old Testament to Christ’ (Gerhard von Rad, ‘Typological interpretation of the Old Testament’, in Claus Westermann (ed.), Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (London: SCM Press, 1963), pp. 17–39 (39)). 15 For an extensive recent account of discipleship as imitation, see Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007). 16 I take heed, therefore, of Oliver O’Donovan’s stern warning not to ‘dip into Israel’s experience at one point . . . and to take out a single disconnected image or theme from it’, which would be ‘to treat the history of God’s reign like a commonplace

46

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

history narrated in Scripture. The salvation-historical nature of the material necessarily plunges us into the business of narrative analysis; but it is also the case that the Scriptures provide the frame, or chart the trajectory, for a theological discussion they themselves prompt but do not always directly provide. Not coincidently, in the dramatization of an ‘interpretative action’ in Murder in the Cathedral, Eliot prompts his audience to just such a reading of Scripture. Moreover, this method brings us into the range of the three ‘questions of selfhood’ that were outlined in the opening chapter.

C

The ﬁrst temptation

i. The pleasing past In what now follows I shall offer a close reading of the ﬁrst of Thomas’s temptations – the temptation to easeful security – in order to show just how enticing it really is. I shall then show how the temptation is echoed in the work of Martha C. Nussbaum, before seeking to explain how and why the path of Christian discipleship leads away from this offer. To set the scene: the entrance of the Tempters is pre-empted by Thomas’s command to the Priests and the Chorus: ‘[W]atch’ (I.254). The audience is now in Thomas’s Gethsemane, called to observe his struggle between his own will and the call of God on his life, and called also to a self-examination.17 The ﬁrst of these Tempters turns Thomas to the past self he has now apparently renounced. Thomas is invited to be ‘realistic’: to expand his moral vision of himself and to repudiate his current obdurate narrowness by recognizing the world as it truly is. He is called, in other words, to a life of safety and ease. In my response, I shall argue, with the help of Augustine’s discussion of memory, that Christian discipleship is a renunciation of the apparent security and pleasure of this so-called realism precisely because it denies that it is an adequate description of the human situation. According to Christian testimony, the human situation is instead framed by the judgement and the promises of God. The First Tempter greets the Archbishop in tones of jovial familiarity, in contrast with the foreboding in Thomas’s immediately preceding speech:

You see, my Lord, I do not wait upon ceremony: Here I have come, forgetting all acrimony, Hoping that your present gravity Will ﬁnd excuse for my humble levity Remembering all the good time past. (I.255-9)

book or a dictionary of quotations’ (Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 27). 17 This feature of the play – the direct appeal for self-examination – has been noted with not a little discomfort by some audiences. For example, see Elizabeth Däumer, ‘Blood and witness: The reception of Murder in the Cathedral in postwar Germany’, Comparative Literature Studies, 43(1–2) (2006), pp. 179–99.

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

47

The pleasant-sounding patter of the rhymes emphasizes his deference and indicates his desire to remind Thomas of the camaraderie and fellowship he shared with the King and his courtiers in former times. These are soothing and conciliatory tones. He tempts Thomas with yearning for the happy past when ‘the King and you and I were all friends together’ (I.263), enjoying the relaxations and pleasures attendant on high ofﬁce. Doesn’t Thomas remember the bond of their friendship? – ‘Friendship should be more than biting Time can sever’ (I.264). Time, pictured like some wild animal dismembering its prey, threatens to sever us from the past; but Friendship should be stronger than this and immune to the fractures and rents that come about through ‘biting Time’. The First Tempter ﬁnds in the seasons an apt metaphor: if Thomas has regained the King’s favour, then surely the ‘summer’ of the past can continue. Surely the pleasant memories of the music and laughter of the courtier’s life – indeed, his former identity as a courtier – need not fade. Even the winter of the past, with its cultured badinage and wine-bibbing by the ﬁre can constitute an ongoing ‘summer’. If the King and he can still hold each other as friends, then ‘[M]irth and sportfulness need not walk warily’ (I.275). The Tempter is not depicting a life of unbridled sensuality: Eliot holds back from implicating Thomas in rakish behaviour in his more secular past. The memory is of the simple pleasures of company and delight in culture and nature rather than of some orgy of excess. This is what makes the temptation real for Thomas now – it is not an invitation to visit the back alleys of desire but rather to travel the open road of pleasure and ease in the company of familiar and comforting faces. There is nothing obviously rapacious or decadent about this vision. Rather, these pleasantries were simply – and yet could be – the fruit of managing the tricky and dangerous business of political life with consummate skill.18 ii. The promise of return The Tempter depicts time as a rotating series of seasons corresponding to one another. Thus, the wintry period of enmity between King and Archbishop must turn into a fresh period of amity. There is the promise of return in the natural cycle of the seasons which is matched by a similar promise in the affairs of men. ‘[M]irth matches melancholy’ (I.281), and so there can be optimism about a return to the former days of enjoying the untroubled sweetness of life. Thomas is happy to accept the premise that ‘history repeats’; though the future is on the whole unclear to human beings, it is evident that the generations revisit the things that have happened of old to not much advantage: 18 The character of the historical Thomas prior to his elevation to the see of Canterbury intrigues his biographer, Frank Barlow. The mediaeval accounts stress that ‘Thomas, although he detested lust, idle talk and avarice, like a wise man dissimulated his feelings so as not to offend those who went in for such things. His courtesy and generosity . . . made him an agreeable member of the fashionable world of which inwardly he disapproved.’ As Barlow notes, we ought to suspect a projection backwards of an inner holiness onto the worldly (and very wealthy) courtier. That said, there is no record of the earlier Thomas as an out-and-out debauchee either. (Frank Barlow, Thomas Becket (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1986), pp. 25–6.)

48

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

‘[M]en learn little from others’ experience’ (I.285). But this, Thomas can see, is not the experience of the individual whose personal experiences do not return. The nostalgia for the past that is so appealing is not in the end useful to him because he denies the possibility of it returning again. The ‘summer’ is long gone. After all, Only The fool, ﬁxed in his folly, may think He can turn the wheel on which he turns. (I.288-90) The Tempter’s response – ‘a nod is as good as a wink’ (I.291) – is a colloquial way of saying that it makes no difference. He rejects Thomas’s rather high-blown talk of history and points rather to a psychological insight: ‘[A] man will often love what he spurns’ (I.292). Thomas may have rejected the past life and he may consider returning to it impossible but that is not an indication that he is not desirous of its return. Even the impossible may be a genuine temptation, because the heart may be given to it. Thomas admits that he has not forgotten his past pleasures; the Tempter suggests to him that he may still harbour longings for a return to them. Thomas’s stern rebuke to the Tempter – ‘[Y]ou were safer / Think of penitence and follow your master’ – is revealing perhaps of his own inner doubts. iii. The security of ease The Tempter responds by appealing to Thomas’s need for security. The Archbishop’s faith is too enthusiastic, too uncompromising for the Tempter: ‘Not at this gait!’ he cries. Thomas may also urge others along this destructive and unsafe path. Rather: ‘[T]he safest beast is not the one that roars most loud’ (I.300). His warning is that Thomas’s actions are likely to produce an uproar that will have dangerous consequences; in addition, ‘our master’ – by whom the Tempter ironically indicates not Christ but King Henry – is not combative like this. He too would rather a return to the safety and comfort of the quiet pleasures of the courtly life on the vast royal properties. The Tempter teases Thomas to ‘[B]e easy, man!’ (I.303). In former times the Archbishop had not been so puritanical, not so strict upon the ‘sinners’ of his acquaintance. He was a ﬂexible and wise – and safe – gentleman of the court, when as Chancellor he had been the King’s most trusted colleague and friend. Why not return to a life of ease? After all, ‘[T]he easy man lives to eat the best dinners’ (I.304). This ﬁrst temptation, then, is on the one hand an offer to Thomas of a nostalgic vision of his own self – his idyllic past life of pleasure, fellowship and ease. It asks him to recall the strong hold his former love for the King has on him, and the possibility of a much safer life in his household. If it is not possible to actually relive the past, it is surely proper to live in continuity with it. On the other hand, he is accused of a puritanical pride because of his determination not to compromise. It is implied that he is judgemental and inﬂexible – and that he ought to concede more to ordinary sensual ‘sinners’. He is called instead to ﬁnd a way in which to manage his circumstances so as to minimize the harm that is looming, and so as to make space for the enjoyment

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

49

of good pleasures, as is only proper for a man of his standing. This is a call to be realistic: to live within the given limits of his existence.

D

Martha C. Nussbaum, the Greeks and luck

The work of Martha C. Nussbaum in dialogue with the Greek tragedians and philosophers in her The Fragility of Goodness serves as a counterpart to Thomas’s ﬁrst temptation.19 Within Thomas’s temptation lies the problem that vexed the Greeks, according to Nussbaum’s account: that many of the factors that constitute the well-lived life (eudemonia) are beyond the control of the human person.20 Nussbaum describes her book as an examination of the aspiration to rational self-sufﬁciency in Greek ethical thought: the aspiration to make the goodness of a good human life safe from luck through the controlling power of reason.21 Human practical rationality is not a game played on a smooth playing surface, but rather on one with surprising bumps and hollows.22 Nussbaum ﬁnds in the philosophical and literary sources of ancient Greece two ‘normative conceptions’ of how would-be moral agents can respond to this condition. On the one hand, the agent can assert control through uninterrupted, pure activity and through emphasis on the rational aspect of human being. The eudemonistic life thus envisaged is solitary and unimpaired by reference to others. Plato, for one, articulates a version of this response (though not uncritically so). On the other hand, the moral agent can be seen as sharing both active and passive components, with the recognition that there are external sources of power that inevitably limit the control one may reasonably expect to have over events. Under this conception, the eudemonistic life is lived alongside and with the co-operation of friends and loved ones.23 Nussbaum’s Aristotle gives expression to a version of this second normative conception (which Nussbaum herself clearly favours). Thomas is faced here with a choice to limit the risk of his situation by tempering his witness to Christ – in other words, to follow this second alternative. The First Tempter does not ask him to assert his control over events, but rather to withdraw from them in the name of safety, ease and friendship and to go back to being the person he was. He is not even asked to abandon 19 Martha Craven Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Nussbaum is not motivated to delve into ancient literature by merely antiquarian interest but because she believes that the concerns addressed in these texts are of contemporary – or perhaps universal – relevance in liberal democracies. 20 This problem also concerns Salman Rushdie, as we have seen (see Chapter 2). 21 Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness, p. 3. 22 Nussbaum’s suspicion that the problem of luck – and so risk – is one keenly felt by contemporary people is conﬁrmed by Anthony Giddens (1991: 109–43), who argues that the culture of late modernity can be regarded as a ‘risk’ culture. 23 Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness, pp. 20–21.

50

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Christ, it seems; only, rather, to abandon the angular way he has of living out his faith. Thomas may yet avoid the impending catastrophe by structuring his life and commitments such that he is able to steer wide of a serious conﬂict that threatens to destroy him. His value-commitments are too complicated for him to continue safely as he is. As Nussbaum notes, the strategy of conﬂict elimination as a solution to a dilemma was a prominent theme in ﬁfth-century tragedy, but has also a modern counterpart.24 The claim is that ‘the human being’s relation to value in the world is not, or should not be, profoundly tragic . . . that it is, or should be, possible without culpable neglect or serious loss to cut off the risk of the typical tragic occurrence’.25 In Sophocles’ Antigone (as Nussbaum reads it) two attempts to simplify the structure of an agent’s commitments and loves – in order that conﬂict might be avoided and security promoted – are examined.26 This is one vision of eudemonia (that is, the more Aristotelian alternative) achieved by two possible routes. The plot revolves around the dispute between Antigone and King Creon over the unburied corpse of her brother (and his nephew), Polyneices, who has been killed attacking the city of Thebes. The religious obligation to bury the corpse (which Antigone desires) is in apparent conﬂict with the civic duty to leave it unburied as the body of an enemy – the view advocated by Creon. Creon does not appear conﬂicted, however, because he narrows his vision of practical reasoning to include only civic values. As the play opens, he seems to have succeeded in keeping the problem of misfortune at bay. His strategy, however, fails him as the plot unfolds, and it ends with the suicides of his son, Haemon, his wife, Eurydice, and Antigone. As he mourns at this calamity, he repents of the inadequate practical reasoning that has led him into such entanglements. Though it is generally agreed that Antigone’s vision is morally superior to Creon’s, Nussbaum argues that her moral vision is similarly limited;27 she likewise makes a simpliﬁcation in her concept of the good: family attachments (and so the religious duty to care for the dead bodies of family members) for her are the trump card. Nussbaum’s Antigone is at least able to recognize the contingent factors that impinge upon her, that her conception of value is vulnerable to some sets of circumstances. Her vision is ‘the more humanly rational and the richer of the two protagonists: both active and receptive, neither exploiter nor simply victim’.28 Neither of these two responses is ultimately satisfactory, however. Antigone also eliminates conﬂicting obligations by means of a simpliﬁcation of the world 24 Ibid., p. 51. 25 Ibid. 26 It is not my purpose here to evaluate Nussbaum’s reading of the play in terms of its strengths and weaknesses as a piece of literary criticism but rather to make use of the conceptual discussion that she generates. Paul B. Woodruff is one reviewer who, though full of admiration for Nussbaum’s work, disputes her reading of the Greek texts. (Paul B. Woodruff, ‘Review of Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50(1) (1989), p. 205–10.) 27 Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness, p. 86. 28 Ibid., p. 67.

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

51

of value. Her subservience to duty makes her cold to other values – such as the goodness of life itself – and leads to her destruction. She is an agent who is more than ‘half in love with easeful death’ and blind to the true nature of piety. As Nussbaum shows, an optimistic harmonization of the two responses is an option that the play countenances and rejects as well.29 Instead, she ﬁnds in the play a practical wisdom that bends responsively to the shape of the natural world, accommodating itself to, giving due recognition to, its complexities . . . To be ﬂexibly responsive to the world, rather than rigid, is a way of living in the world that allows an acceptable amount of safety and stability while still permitting recognition of the richness of value that is in the world.30 So: Nussbaum would argue (and in later pieces she makes these thoughts more explicitly her own31) that, as Antigone shows, the avoidance of conﬂict is not only impossible, it is even undesirable for the eudemonistic life. Practical wisdom actually demands that we acknowledge our own ﬁnitude and our vulnerability to external factors – even those we might call ‘luck’. The conﬂict-free life would be reduced in value and beauty next to the life which is open to the possibility of conﬂict. For Nussbaum, managing risk is a matter of being ‘ﬂexibly responsive’ to risk rather than eliminating it. This ﬂexible posture towards the world involves using a speciﬁcally practical reason – a reason that does not imagine itself mastering the world and its circumstances but rather reﬂectively interacting with them.32 Not that this is a claim to guarantee security; but it is the safest and most realistic strategy available – and it is precisely the strategy that Christian martyrs appear to have eschewed. Nussbaum’s claim is that this strategy takes seriously what is, and, by so doing, maximizes both the security and the pleasure available to the human person. It may appear at ﬁrst blush that this temptation is, in its turn, a strategy for ensuring security by means of a narrowing of the moral ﬁeld. The Tempter does this by making Thomas’s former friendship with the King the value to which all other considerations are to be ordered. However, around this apparent narrowing of value, what he offers is the reverse of Creon’s self-assertion. Thomas is being invited to show more ﬂexibility (as Nussbaum would recommend), and is accused by the Tempter of a self-destructive rigidity. The larger, singular vision of the good that Thomas feels he has been called to pursue is highly dangerous (and needlessly so). It does not recognize his human limits. He is to yield to his heart’s longing for the idyllic past and to his very human needs for security and friendship. He is called to recognize that his particular vision of the good is making him (and others) insecure, and to acknowledge his powerlessness to master time or to overcome the King. 29 Ibid., p. 75. 30 Ibid., p. 80. 31 Martha Craven Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 365–91. 32 This is, after all, what Salahuddin discovers in The Satanic Verses.

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

52

This accusation stands against Christian disciples and martyrs more generally: in their inﬂexible preparedness to die rather than deny their witness, are they not guilty of causing instability? It is not only the consequences for the self that are catastrophic; the martyr inﬂames society as well, risking harm to others.33 Martyrdom seems like a choice for discontinuity with the past and all its ties, a decision to favour a rupture rather than smooth evolution from past into present. By holding on to Christ as the supreme value to the extent that they do, martyrs appear to be denying that there are other values. Are martyrs denying the goodness of the world – the creation (they claim) of their God, after all – and that which binds human beings into it?

E

The martyr and the ‘good’ life

i. Preliminaries The Nussbaumian temptation is an apparently cogent and attractive proposal: human agents ought to acknowledge their situatedness and the ﬁnitude appropriate to them as human beings if they are to secure the goods of security on the one hand and pleasurable experiences on the other.34 She here addresses the three questions of selfhood (narrative; the good; others) which were outlined in Chapter 1: humans beings self-narrate against a backdrop of luck, they pursue the good across a broad ﬁeld, and by doing so protect others from the consequences of their enthusiasms. However, my claim is that Christian martyrdom exposes Nussbaum’s eudemonism as claiming at once too much and too little. Her hope for human security is too optimistic, but her description of the goods human beings ought to desire is itself too limited. In response, I shall show that the disciple of Christ is called in a special way and on a speciﬁc basis not to attempt to secure his own identity on the basis of what apparently is, but neither merely to become detached; that pleasure and rest are neither utterly repudiated, nor accepted as the ultimate reality for human beings; and that the human need for safety is renounced by the martyr on the grounds that there is a greater security offered in the heavenly city. What this means is that the martyr stands counter to, and in fact challenges, the Nussbaumian version of the human situation. First (in ‘Forgetting what lies behind’) I shall offer a description of martyrological faith as a response, in time, to the promises of God. This account will then be deepened by taking 33 The accusation levelled against the early Christians was precisely that they were impious – that their stubborn refusal to sacriﬁce to the genius of the Emperor was putting the security of the Empire at risk, or was the cause of its visible decline. This was, for example, the gist of Saturninus’ accusation against the Scillitan martyrs: ‘We too are a religious people, and our religion is a simple one: we swear by the genius of our lord the emperor and we offer prayers for his health – as you also ought to do’ (‘The acts of the Scillitan martyrs’, III, in Musurillo (2000: 87). See W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 180–82. 34 Hauerwas describes her argument as ‘her [Nussbaum’s] attempt to recover a sense of the unavoidability of the contingent for a life of excellence as a free-standing truth’ (Stanley Hauerwas, Wilderness Wanderings: Probing Twentieth-Century Theology and Philosophy (London: SCM Press, 2001), p. 93).

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

53

up Augustine’s exploration of the self in its relation to time. This provides the groundwork for a further analysis of pleasure (in Ease and pleasure) and protection (in Security and safety) from a martyrological perspective. By way of a ﬁnal preliminary: it might be objected that the description of martyrdom depends on a world-view determined by themes learnt from a claimed divine revelation, whereas Nussbaum’s description of luck (i.e. her ‘realism’) is merely derived from material fact and human experience. If this is so, then the two alternatives start on apparently rather unequal footings. However, Nussbaum does not acknowledge the ‘theological’ commitments embedded in her description of the context of human life in terms of ‘luck’, learnt as they are from Greek polytheists.35 To describe an event in terms of ‘luck’ or ‘chance’ means an already determined judgement about the nature of such events: that, because the individual in the midst of these events cannot account for them or order them according to some plan, and certainly cannot face the future with any guarantees, this is how the world really is. Yet, in asserting this to be the case, Nussbaum is making a claim to knowledge that is really inaccessible to the human subject – except as a faith-claim. The argument that this way of living the good life is more realistic than the alternative leads to the not-insigniﬁcant question of how this judgement about what is and isn’t ‘real’ is arrived at. It is very much an interpretation of the human situation, but it conceals its interpretative process. The discussion may then proceed on the basis that two competing ‘theologies’ are being compared. ii. ‘Forgetting what lies behind’ a. Life on the way To identify as one who is a potential Christian martyr is to make a break in some sense with the past. Like Nussbaum, the Scriptures situate the individual in a world in which human existence is vulnerable. Unlike Nussbaum, the believing individual steps forward on the basis not of the practical arrangement of values, but of hearing the divine promises. The scriptural metaphor of the journey, which maps time onto space, indicates that human life is lived not merely with a cycle of seasons or under conditions governed only by luck, but according to the divine shaping of – and judgement on – history. In order to show how the Christian self is thus situated, I will trace the emergence of this motif in the OT narratives and its typological use by the NT writers. The faith of Abraham – that normative faith for the Scriptures and the Christian tradition – was expressed in his leaving behind the comforts of Ur and heading for an unseen land of Yhwh’s choosing. It is the faith of a wealthy man, a man with a considerable amount to lose; but the promise of God puts a decisive imprint on Abraham’s relationship to his time, his resources and his security. The promise reshapes Abraham’s reality entirely, though it is a 35 Charles Taylor notes Nussbaum’s tendency to contrast Greek ‘polytheism’ favourably against Judaeo-Christian monotheism. (Charles Taylor, ‘Critical notice of Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 18(4) (1988), pp. 805–15 (813).)

54

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

lesson he learns in a somewhat ad hoc fashion, as much through his futile attempts to foreshorten the time between promise and fulﬁlment as through his patience and forbearance. However, the step that Thomas (and any martyr) is called to take is not the faith of ﬁrst setting out, but a faith in medias res. He encounters this temptation after having already set out on his journey away from his more apparently secure past towards the kingdom of God. We do not ﬁnd Abraham, despite his faults, hearkening back to Ur and whatever lifestyle he has lost. Within the Abraham cycle, there is however one ﬁgure known for succumbing to the temptation to look back: Lot’s wife. With the brimstone hailing down on her home, she looks longingly back. If the salty judgement on her seems harsh, it also serves to underscore her lack of belief that the call of God to the future really is the future. That is to say, her heart is, it would seem, still in Sodom and Gomorrah. From the spare text it is readily inferred that she still yearns for that which she knows has fallen under the judgement of God. The suggestion is that her sin is a nostalgic longing for that which God has repudiated, not a faithful longing for that which he promises to give.36 Lot’s wife serves as a precursor to the great moment of in-between-ness in Israel’s history – the wilderness journey between Egypt and the Promised Land. Moses’s wrestle with the people in the desert is often cast in terms of their longing for the pleasant Egypt of their enslavement in preference to the hardships of their journey. With their backs to the Red Sea and with Pharaoh’s army closing in on them, they complain: ‘[I]t would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness!’ (Exod. 14.12). Likewise, their hunger (Exod. 16.3; Num. 11.4-6) and their thirst (Num. 20.1-8) contrast with the plenty that they had in their former home in bondage to Pharaoh. Their looking back is not at all unreasonable from the point of view of human needs. As for Lot’s wife, the difﬁculties and uncertainties of the journey of faith contrast unfavourably with the simple pleasures and security of the past. The experience of being a refugee has little to commend it, especially when the basic requirements of daily living are apparently not being met. The disconnection of personal and communal identity involved is also what is at issue for the Israelites. Far better to be the slaves of the Egyptians and to know who one is than to be trapped in this condition of uncertainty – dis-located and dis-identiﬁed. Far better to be able to manage life as it is than to risk losing all. Throwing off the shackles of Pharaoh means disavowing his identiﬁcation of them as a slave-people. However, Israel is not the maker of her own identity; instead, she is called to an identity that is given to her by Yhwh.37 Yearning for the ﬂeshpots of Egypt is a yearning to be identiﬁed as one formerly was: it is a longing for the old identity as a slave-people under the rule of Yhwh’s

36 For von Rad, the story of Lot’s wife teaches that ‘before divine judgment there is only the possibility of being smitten or of escaping, but no third alternative’ (Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; London: SCM Press, rev. edn, 1972), p. 217). 37 As Walter Brueggeman writes: ‘Israel’s existence is rooted in Yahweh’s inescapable, originary commitment to Israel’ (Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), p. 414).

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

55

opponent. This nostalgia for the past self does present a rosy vision of what once was. The speech of the Israelites about the Egypt that they have left behind seems to bear little resemblance to the real Egypt. Slave labour, racial segregation and ethnic cleansing – and their severe condemnation by Yhwh – are conveniently excised from the Egypt of their complaints to Moses. In the Exilic period, the past does become an object of yearning – but in a crucially transformed way. Rather than being called out from slavery towards a new life of freedom with Yhwh, Israel now found herself re-enslaved and outcast. The laments of Exile exhibit a powerful tone of disconnection and longing: By the rivers of Babylon – there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our harps. For there our captors asked us for songs, and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’ How could we sing the LORD’s song in a foreign land? (Ps. 137.1-4) The memory of Zion is invoked with all the pain of its bitter loss – and a song about the end of singing.38 The circumstances are very different from those of the Exodus: here is the forced removal of a people from their homeland and the attempted destruction of their identity as a people through enslavement (as certainly happened to the tribes of the North). Nostalgia for a more comfortable past existence might be forgiven a people in those conditions. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures – many of which date from this period or after – most assuredly do not present a nostalgic vision of the past.39 Rather, the past is viewed as under divine indictment. The climax of the narrative of the Former Prophets in the David–Solomon era is not presented merely as some Golden Era to which Israel should return with all haste. The prophetic call to restoration came with recognition that the old order was even at its height not yet all it could have been. Jeremiah, for example, envisaged a hv’d”x] tyrIB. (‘new covenant’) surpassing the Exodus covenant because torah would now be internalized by the people and not just mediated through the writing on stone tablets (Jer. 31.31-34). Ezekiel’s great temple (Ezek. 40–48), described in such extraordinary detail, clearly exceeds the former temple in its globally signiﬁcant dimensions and in its overﬂow of the divine glory (Ezek. 43.1-12).40 In the book of Haggai, the rebuilt temple is compared unfavourably with the old one; but the divine promise is that ‘the latter splendour of this house shall be greater than the former’ (Hag. 2.9). The appearance of apocalypticism in the latter half of Daniel and Zechariah suggests that longing for a mere repe-

38 John Goldingay,Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006b), p. 214. 39 Pace Freund, who argues that the language of ‘the land ﬂowing with milk and honey’ represents a nostalgic exilic vision. (Richard A. Freund, ‘The land which bled forth its bounty’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 13(2) (1999), pp. 284–97.) 40 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 2; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 580.

56

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

tition of Israel’s past is a cul-de-sac.41 On the historical horizon, no redivivus was possible. The consolation of Israel’s lament could not – would not – come in the form of a return to the past. Her previous faithlessness stood in the way of this; if the covenant were to be re-established, it would have to be on a new footing. Israel was to remember the past with tears; not those of longing, but rather those of sorrow and confession, in preparation for the coming of Yhwh’s cleansing, comfort and restoration (cf. Isa. 40.1ff). A scene which encapsulates this tension in the historical experience of Israel is found in Ezra 3.11-13. When ﬁnally the foundations of the new temple have been laid with the permission of Cyrus the Persian, there is described a scene of great celebration and joy. And yet, intermingled with this is the sound of the older generation – who have seen and now remember the ﬁrst temple – weeping aloud at the sight of the foundations. The result is a sound which is ambiguous: the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people’s weeping, for the people shouted so loudly that the sound was heard far away. (Ezra 3.13) The sorrow and joy blend so as to become indistinguishable. The text does not elevate one noise as the appropriate response to the moment instead of the other here. The elders realize perhaps that the ‘Zion’ of their longings is not a matter merely of laying bricks in the ground. The new generation has, on the other hand, discovered in the ambiguity of this moment not a new identity (which they may possess), but the foundations of a new identity (in which they must hope).42 What we discover then is that the true vulnerability of the human subject does not arise because she inhabits a world governed only by chance. Human fragility is far more profound, in fact, for the past lies under the judgement of God. The hope of Israel, then, was not born out of forgetfulness of the past, nor founded on a nostalgic yearning to return to former days, but seen as continuous with the pattern already established in her covenant history. The import of the prophetic message was that the afﬂictions of the present were not to be the grounds for a hankering for the past; rather, this longing was to be directed to the future. The shape of this hope took the form of the Abrahamic promises and echoed the Mosaic and Davidic high points of Israel’s history; but the scope of the expectation was magniﬁed beyond the historical plane.43 By contrast, the prophets were not at all triumphalistic about the restoration 41 Though, as Hanson argues, in apocalyptic literature the future was framed using the language and symbols of the past. See Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, (Philadelphia: Fortress, rev. edn, 1979), p. 249. 42 When Ezra reads the law aloud to the people, as recorded in Nehemiah 8, the reaction is similarly mixed. See John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006a), p. 728. 43 Though clearly, in the Maccabaean period, this trans-historicality did not obviate the need for action from within the historical sphere in the minds of many Jewish people.

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

57

as they experienced it in history – it would have been a nostalgic triumphalism. After all, the restoration was still enacted under foreign rule – a condition that remains in place at the opening of the NT period.44 The distinctive contribution of the NT is to focus Israel’s hope on Jesus Christ. That the life of faith is a constant pull between the new identity promised in Christ and any previous markers of identity is a theme to which the NT authors frequently return. This tension is often articulated in terms of a longing for the eschatological rule of God in the face of present troubles. Matthew’s gospel offers a retracing of the steps of the Exodus by Jesus.45 The implicit commentary on the present experience of Israel is that her deliverance has not yet been accomplished. Jesus, too, is called out of Egypt having gone there as a refugee (Mt. 2.13-18). Matthew reads the temptation narrative – deliberately set in the wilderness to echo Israel’s mid-point experience – as a recapitulation by Jesus of Israel’s temptations of the wilderness years (Mt. 4.1-10). This naturally forms a prelude to the Sermon on the Mount as Jesus’s recapitulation of the Sinai event. The difference, of course, is that the temptation to succumb to his hunger is resisted by Jesus – not because bread in itself is somehow tainted but because it is here the opposite of dependence on the Word of God. The Sermon itself (Matthew 5–7) is addressed to those who are in a condition of desire – those ‘blessed’ of the beatitudes who experience in the present some signiﬁcant lack: the mourning; the poor in spirit; those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.46 Here, perhaps, it is the exilic theme that asserts itself: these are not the grumbling Israelites of the wilderness journey but the dispirited Jews of the Babylonian captivity in sorrow for their sins but longing for the coming of the kingdom of God. Jesus predicts that the disciples of the Christ will face trials of an eschatological nature preceding the consummation of the Kingdom. In Luke’s version, he turns to the wife of Lot as an example to be eschewed in an end-times context: Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained ﬁre and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them – it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, anyone on the housetop who has belongings in the house must not come down to take them away; and likewise anyone in the ﬁeld must not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife. Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it. (Lk. 17.28-32) 44 ‘The need for this restoration is seen in the common second-temple perception of its own period of history. Most Jews of this period, it seems, would have answered the question “where are we?” in language which, reduced to its simplest form, meant: we are still in exile. They believed that, in all the senses which mattered, Israel’s exile was still in progress’ (N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God (London: SPCK, 1992), p. 268). 45 Ibid., pp. 386–7. 46 As Davies and Allison note, there are strong allusions in the Sermon to exilic themes in Isaiah 61 and Psalm 37. (Dale C. Allison and W. D. Davies, Matthew (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 65–6.)

58

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

The ordinary activities of life serve as a distraction from the impending apocalypsis; and yet, at the moment of a decisive divine intervention, there is no time for clinging to these. Turning back, on the other hand, reveals an orientation of the heart towards the material, temporal and visible that is counter to the call to follow Christ.47 Rather than being the person you were, the Christian life consists in choosing to be, amidst present trials and temptations, the person you are: ‘I wish to be none other than I am.’ The NT hope, then, is expressed as a contraction of the future into the present, exceeding and intensifying the hope of Restoration-era Israel. In the letter to the Hebrews, the writer translates space into time, such that the wilderness journey of the Israelites over physical space becomes a type of the life’s journey of the Christian between the past and the future ‘rest’ (h. kata,pausij) of God. In making this translation the author is self-consciously relying on the Psalmist. The Exodus was already the pattern for Israel’s life with Yhwh, as Psalm 95 attests. The pattern of Israel’s cultic life with its feasts and sacriﬁces was already deeply rooted in that journey narrative. However, the author deploys the Psalmist’s ‘Today’ for his own use. He has found a Christological ‘Today’, because Christ has renarrated the history of Israel – and, indeed, the whole story of humanity, as the reference to Psalm 8 indicates – as his own story. The history and religion of ancient Israel foreshadowed the appearance of this one, the Christ. The analogical framework of the epistle revolves around the superior fullness and the decisiveness of the revelation in the Christ. Thus, the journey of the Christian is like and unlike the journey of the ancient Israelite. The temptation to fall back, to complain and to desert is no less evident in the Christian journey. The difﬁculties that surround them are also parallel. The difference is twofold. On the one hand, the Christian has had a more complete vision of the reality to come and the possibility of God’s bounteous rest than ever the faithful witnesses of old had, seeing as they did only po,rrwqen (‘from a distance’ (Heb. 11.13)). On the other hand, if the ancients were treated sternly for their lack of faith in the desert, how much more so can the Christian expect severity for denying what is offered in the cruciﬁxion of the Christ? The letter climaxes with the claim that the believers have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the ﬁrstborn, whose names are written in heaven. (Heb. 12.22-23)48 These verses seem strange next to the previous portrayal of the readers of the letter as in the middle of their pilgrimage, but they serve to contrast this group with the sojourners of old. Here, they are journeying to a place to which in a sense they have already come. They are already ‘present’ in the company of angels in the VIerousalh.m evpourani,w|.49 47 In this vein, too, we can read Paul’s disavowal of his own ‘blameless’ (a;memptoj) past in Phil. 3.3-11. 48 See Gal. 4.26 for a similar sentiment in Pauline dress. 49 For this reading, see Peter T. O’Brien, ‘The church as a heavenly and eschatological

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

59

We can begin to see how different this is from the way in which Nussbaum situates the moral self as ‘responding ﬂexibly’ to conditions of luck. My reading of the scriptural narrative shows that the Christian (the one who is potentially a martyr) is certainly not insensitive to ‘the fragility of goodness’. On the contrary, the self at risk of martyrdom knows how truly vulnerable human life is to events that are beyond human power to control. Even clinging to traces of one’s identity emanating from the past is not a successful strategy for managing the unforeseen. From Abraham on, we have seen that faith in the God of Israel is faith in a God whose promises – and whose pursuit of those promises – shape human history in a decisive way. The Christian martyr cannot recognize ‘realism’ in any account of the human situation which excludes the promising God and replaces him with dumb luck. Quite precisely, he witnesses to a reality that is circumscribed by the God of Abraham (i.e. the God who is Lord of history). This is not to say, however, that the Christian is immune to surprises: his testimony is not to a secret knowledge of history, but to a knowledge of the one whose plan history is. b. Augustine, memory and desire These concepts are given a particularly rich treatment in the meditations of Augustine on memory and time in the ﬁnal books of the Confessions. Here we encounter the narrative of a man in desperate search of his own selfhood. As I shall show, Augustine’s exposition of the human self locates the civitatis dei as the place/time where it ﬁnds its true home. Furthermore, he teaches that faith is the means by which the individual directs his longing, within the present time, to the supreme good – namely, God himself. In desiring to attain the promises of God, the human being does not transcend his humanity, but is in fact being true to his created nature. Towards the end of the Confessions, Augustine writes:

I will ‘enter into my chamber’ and will sing you songs of love, groaning with inexpressible groanings on my wanderer’s path, and remembering Jerusalem with my heart lifted up towards it – Jerusalem my home land, Jerusalem my mother.50 Here is homesickness for an unseen home. The Confessions (as I shall read them here with the help of Hans Urs von Balthasar51) themselves represent an attempt to adopt a stance to the past that avoids nostalgia for the pre-conversion self.52 Augustine tries not so much to have done with his life but to order it aright by narrating it as confessio – adopting a stance critical, entity’, in D. A. Carson (ed.), The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study (Exeter: Paternoster, 1987), pp. 88–119 (95–8). 50 Augustine, Confessions (trans. Henry Chadwick; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), XII.16, p. 257. 51 Hans Urs von Balthasar, Man in History: A Theological Study (London: Sheed and Ward, 1968). 52 The same inner journey is the concern of the early books of Augustine’s classic work on the Trinity. See Augustine, ‘The Trinity’, in Augustine: Later Works (ed. John Burnaby; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955).

60

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

rather than nostalgic, of his former self. Augustine’s confession that as a youth he was ‘in love with love’53 is a description of a kind of incurvature of longing on itself. However, having retraced the narrative of his life, he now turns to consider memory itself. Memory was described by Plato in terms of the soul’s reminiscence of its own origin within the world of ideas. Augustine baptizes this conception,54 and because the origin of the soul which it remembers is now the eternal and living God, the capacity of memory is found to have a indescribable depth. Commenting on 1 Cor. 2.11 (‘no man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of a man that is in him’), he explains that it is only through God, whom man himself does not know, that man can know himself.55 God, then, lies within his memory, and yet is not contained by his memory.56 This tension is replicated in the human subject itself: the vast caves of the memory hold immensities that are not conceivable even to the soul that contains them. Augustine’s subterranean journey through the caverns of his own memory leads to an encounter with his own past self: There also [i.e. in memory] I meet myself and recall what I am, what I have done, and when and where and how I was affected when I did it.57 However, this strange meeting is partial and ﬂeeting: I myself cannot grasp the totality of what I am. Is the mind, then, too restricted to compass itself, so that we have to ask what is that element of itself which it fails to grasp? Surely that cannot be external to itself; it must be within the mind. How then can it fail to grasp it?58 If his identity (‘the totality of what I am’) is so elusive, how shall he then ﬁnd the God for whom he searches? He equates the search for God with the search for ‘the happy life’.59 This longing for the happy life is universal, he says, even among those who cannot consciously remember being happy, strictly speaking. Yet this eudemonistic longing is evidence that in fact all human beings have known the happy life – for if it were not in their memories they would not know it to love it.60 God has never been absent from his memory, in fact; he always deigned to dwell in it:

53 Augustine, Confessions, III.i, p. 35. 54 Roland Teske, ‘Augustine’s philosophy of memory’, in Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 148–58 (150). 55 Augustine, Confessions, X.v–vi, pp. 182–4. 56 Balthasar, Man in History, pp. 2–3. 57 Augustine, Confessions, X.viii, p. 186. 58 Ibid., X.viii, p. 187. 59 Ibid., X.xx, p. 196. 60 Balthasar, Man in History, p. 5; Teske, ‘Augustine’s philosophy of memory’, p. 154.

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

61

Surely my memory is where you dwell, because I remember you since ﬁrst I learnt of you, and I ﬁnd you there when I think about you.61 Though it is not possible here to give in detail all the lineaments of his argument, what he says here about memory is the basis for Augustine’s understanding of the Christian self in time.62 Through Christ the new Jerusalem has come down into time, not so as to destroy time, but to fulﬁl it.63 This ‘Jerusalem’ is the church that is the bride of the Lamb, and it pilgrimages in time as if it is in a foreign land. As Balthasar puts it: The constantly self-realizing point of intersection between transient time and salvation time causes the duration of the Church to appear as an ever-present dramatic event which, precisely because of the indwelling of the eternal in it, can never be seen as a whole.64 The church stands at the crossroads between times, as it were, and the complete pattern of progress on the journey is not visible to it. And yet there is a sense in which the journey is already over and the church has come to its heavenly home. In ‘Burnt Norton’, Eliot writes (with strong allusion to the incarnation and passion): ‘Only through time time is conquered.’65 Is ‘conquered’ the best theological verb to use? The incarnation of the Logos in time offers up time to a divine experiencing of it. Time, and its sinister twin, Death, were not avoided by him but transcended – and transformed – in him. If they are ‘conquered’ by him it is not because they are denied by him but rather because they are experienced by him. Both remain, but their negative affects are attenuated.66 As Balthasar (reading Augustine) says, temporality as it stands ‘is an absence of the creature from uniﬁed eternity’67 – which means death. It is not possible to grasp eternity in time: even Augustine’s impressive inventory of his memory does not lead him unambiguously to that condition. It is only by faith (in the terms of Hebrews 11-12) and in ‘acceptance of the renunciation which is imposed upon him’68 that the journeying Christian and the pilgrim church can experience that indwelling of the eternal in the temporal.

61 62 63 64 65

Augustine, Confessions, X.xxv, p. 201. Teske, ‘Augustine’s philosophy of memory’, p. 154ff. Balthasar, Man in History, p. 38. Ibid. T. S. Eliot, The Complete Poems and Plays (London: Faber, 1969), p. 173. Frye (1982: 76) makes a similar point, but approaches it via a literary account of Scripture. 66 This is also an important consideration if Augustine’s reasoning is not to fall prey to Nussbaum’s critique of Platonism in general, that it illegitimately (if bravely) seeks to transcend human existence by leaving it behind in some way. She herself acknowledges the profundity of the incarnation as the Christian response to the problem of transcending humanity, but fails to develop this line of thinking. See Nussbaum’s ‘Transcending Humanity’ in Love’s Knowledge, pp. 365–91. See also Fergus Kerr’s illuminating comments (Immortal Longings: Versions of Transcending Humanity (London: SPCK, 1997), p. 14). 67 Balthasar, Man in History, p. 39. 68 Ibid., p. 40.

62

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Augustine’s development of the biblical tradition intensiﬁes the typological reading of the OT found in Hebrews and also in Paul. Human longing may have false objects, including that found in the form of nostalgia for the past. However, this longing for the soul’s true home may ﬁnd a true object in the city of God, revealed in the Son. But it is not enough to say that this lies completely in the future: two more observations are required. First, the Son ‘Today’ reveals the time of the Father, such that the city of God is now here already present, and the church in Christ is now already present in it. Though invisible, it is visible to the eyes of faith. Secondly, Augustine’s point is that the fact of the longing itself reveals that it is something remembered; thus, not only does the city of God lie ahead, but it is also the soul’s origin. To express it in other – more Biblical – terms, we might say that in yearning for the fulﬁlment of the promises of God, the human individual is being true to her created nature. It is not, then, the longing for the past itself that is denied but rather any imperfect and merely penultimate objects of this longing. Furthermore, the believing self is not seeking to transcend its humanity, as Nussbaum fears; rather, he is following the pattern of his own created nature. It is, in fact, humanizing. Like Christ – and like the protagonists of Greek tragedy, too – the martyr experiences in the most extreme form the press of time.69 Events seem to have turned against him. It was recorded that the martyr Pionius was implored by his pagan fellow citizens to recant: ‘Listen to us Pionius, we love you. There are many reasons why you deserve to live, for your character and righteousness. It is good to live and to see the light!’ Pionius replied: ‘I too agree that life is good, but the life that we long for is better; and so too of light, that one true light. All these things are indeed good, and we do not run from them as though we are eager to die or because we hate God’s works. Rather, we despise these things which ensnare us because of the superiority of those other great goods.’70 Christian martyrdom was never intended to spring from a hatred of life, or from a death wish.71 The witness that the martyr makes is to his renunciation of strategies of survival and his afﬁrmation of homesickness for the kingdom of God. Like Nussbaum, the Christian martyr critiques the narrowing of the eudemonistic vision. However, where Nussbaum invites consideration of a balanced range of goods held with maximum ﬂexibility, the martyr proclaims a supreme good to which other goods are ordered. 69 Rahner puts the same thought in different terms in his meditation on death. (Karl Rahner, On the Theology of Death (trans. C. H. Henkey; Quaestiones Disputatae, 2; New York: Herder and Herder, 1972).) 70 ‘The martyrdom of Pionius the presbyter and his companions’, V, in Musurillo (2000: 143). 71 Charles Taylor (1988: 308) notes: ‘the transcendent can be seen as endorsing or afﬁrming the value of ordinary human attention and concern, as has undoubtedly been the case with the Judaeo-Christian tradition, with decisive consequences for our whole moral outlook’.

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

63

The next two points relate to this ﬁrst part (i.e. point ii.) because they are what make the past (and potentially the present and future) desirable: ease and pleasure, on the one hand (point iii.), and, on the other, security and safety (point iv.). I seek in what follows to give a theological and scriptural account of these twinned themes, relating them also to questions of self-identity, and showing thereby that Christian assurance and blessing are secured in the life of the ascended Christ. iii. Ease and pleasure The emphasis so far has been on the rupture between Christian life and the old self – the move away from the past into the future. My intention here is to show how Scripture asserts rather than denies the created goodness of human life in the world and of human enjoyment of this life, while also teaching of its potential to distract from the ultimate purpose of human existence. By ‘ease and pleasure’ I am indicating the material things that human beings ﬁnd delightful and the time to enjoy them. As we have seen, Thomas is not called by his Tempter to an unrestrained sensuality or to a pure hedonism which might easily be dismissed as licentiousness. Rather, the vision of life he remembers is easeful and pleasurable in an attractive and reasonable way. The urbane company and the delights of ﬁne living could readily be seen as the best that life ‘under the sun’ has to offer. To embrace these things would be to afﬁrm the goodness of life itself – and perhaps even to praise the maker of such delights of the heart and body. The accusation that comes to him from the Tempter – and we have heard repeated by Nussbaum – is that his renunciation is (at least implicitly) a denial of the created goodness of these things and experiences – and a denial of his own existence within this order as a ﬁnite creaturely being. Likewise, the vision of the life of Israel as the covenant people presented in the OT has its hedonistic side. It is not presented as a denial of this-worldly goodness but rather as a fulﬁlment of it. #r
64

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Sabbath is to be ‘an enactment of peaceableness that bespeaks the settled rule of Yahweh’.72 The warning which is heard in Deuteronomy corresponds to the condemnation of the people for their indulgence by the Prophets. The easeful life has led, ﬁrst, to an abandonment of exclusive worship of Yhwh and, second, to a neglect of the poor and the oppressed. Amos, for example, chides the women of the northern kingdom for their decadence: Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on Mount Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to their husbands, ‘Bring something to drink!’ (Amos 4.1) Their indolence has direct social – and so religious – ramiﬁcations. There is no sense in which the easeful life can be cordoned off from communal or sacral responsibilities.73 The wisdom literature more explicitly roots its theology in the created order. Qoheleth, for example, avoids dualism because he can declare the things that exist under the sun good in their time and given by the hand of God, whether they be toil or pleasure or even wisdom itself. When he calls it lbeh] he is not offering a verdict on it in quite the same way as the English translations have implied since Tyndale’s ‘vanity’. lbeh] is a description of transience rather than meaninglessness: things are made good and useful and pleasurable in their time, in their place; but only the verdict of God is ultimate.74 He writes: ‘There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink, and ﬁnd enjoyment in their toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God; for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment? (Eccl. 2.24). Sensual enjoyment of the beneﬁts of labour and wealth is not demonized: in fact, it is a blessing from the hand of God himself. They ought to be received with thanksgiving because of their divine origin. Yet even this is lbeh]. There is still more, in other words. They evaporate and do not last, not really. The ﬁnal reality belongs to the divine judgement: ‘[T]he end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgement [jP’v.mib.], including every secret thing, whether good or evil’ (Eccl. 12.14). Christ’s teaching (especially in the synoptic gospels) about the easeful life focuses on the lack of preparedness for the coming of the Kingdom that a love of material goods might involve. Granted, his own life was not marked by asceticism. On the contrary, as Jesus himself admitted: ‘[T]he Son of Man 72 Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 185. 73 The same theme is expounded in Ezek. 16.49-50 and Jer. 5.28. In addition, the worship of the fertility gods and goddesses expressed through idol worship draws attention to the created objects. Could we say it is the attempt to make the divine immanent through made objects that is the problem with idolatry? It is not accidental, surely, that worship of the pagan deities (as portrayed by the OT) is worship of the fertility/agricultural deities. 74 See B. G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reﬂections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther (New Studies in Biblical Theology; UK: InterVarsity Press/Academic, 2001), p. 90.

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

65

has come eating and drinking and you say, “Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!”’ (Lk. 7.34).75 So we hear from him of the rich man who is caught unawares by his own death; or ‘Dives’, who lives in luxury but ignores the plight of Lazarus at his gate. The seed that falls on thorny soil is choked by ‘the cares of the world, and the lure of wealth, and the desire for other things’ and fails to bear fruit (Mk 4.20). The rich young ruler is to his own regret lacking in his ability to do as the disciples have done and leave behind the things of this world (Lk. 18.18-34). The parable of the banquet (Lk. 14.16-24), placed as it is in the midst of teaching about the cost of discipleship, emphasizes the difﬁculty and unlikelihood of those with many possessions in this life being able to follow the Son of Man to the cross because of more immediate everyday concerns. One of Jesus’s most difﬁcult challenges follows: ‘Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.’ (Lk. 14.26-7)76 For his part, Jesus experienced the murderous rejection of his hometown when he preached there (Lk. 4.16-30). There was no ease or pleasure to be found there, nor (as we shall see in the next section) any security: ‘Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head’ (Lk. 9.58). iv. Security and safety I turn now to the theme of security and safety – so important for Nussbaum’s account of how the individual may orient herself to the good. By ‘security and safety’ I mean that which is intended to protect the human person from harm and even from personal disintegration in a world that is beyond human control. I shall show in particular how the doctrines of the Ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit provide for the security and blessing of the disciple even alongside the experience of suffering witness. The ‘heavenly city’ has already been introduced, with Augustine. I now ask, what protection does it provide? What blessing does it secure? In the Scriptures, the promise of protection is depicted in a variety of contexts as a necessary foil to the promise of provision. Protection or security is a good that humankind desires and that God provides. However, as soon as man steps outside the Garden, he is unsafe. Abel was not safe from the jealousy of his brother; Cain in his turn was not safe from the possibility of vengeance as

75 For Wright, Jesus’s feasting is part of his ‘symbolic praxis’ indicating his ‘implicit messianic claim’ (N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), pp. 532–3). 76 The counterpart of this saying must surely be his word to Peter: ‘[T]ruly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come eternal life’ (Lk. 18.28-30).

66

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

a wanderer on the earth and needed protection.77 It is this wandering nomad, in fear for his life because of his own blood-guilt, who becomes the founder of the city of Enoch, named after his son (Gen. 4.17).78 Though civilization shows the evidence of human ﬂourishing – the beginnings of farming and tool-making and music – it is also begun out of fear of reprisal. The city is as much fortress as it is forum. Far from bringing anarchy, the turn of humankind away from God (and the revelation of its wickedness (Gen. 6.5)) results in a collaboration among human beings that is ambivalent. The mission of mankind to ﬁll the earth, renewed in Gen. 9.1, is hampered by the rather sullen insistence of people that they ought to collect together for fear of the murderous intentions of other creatures.79 Protection, however, gives way to pretension. It is too simplistic to read the Tower of Babel as merely a tale of pride gone wrong. The desire which drives the massive collective exercise of its construction is not merely arrogance. The proposed city is to have a ‘tower with its top in the heavens’, granting a heavenly perspective on the earth; and it will be the occasion of the making of a name for themselves (Gen. 11.4). But there is also a note of fear in the motivation given: ‘otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth’. What was so unappealing about being scattered in this way? The divine suspicion – depicted here in quite a curious way as a kind of paranoia – is that they are in pursuit of an idolatrous power; that there is in this intention to co-operate an attempt to challenge the rule of the deity. As a result, under the hand of God, human community will in fact be multiple and divided; communication will be diverse. As William T. Cavanaugh puts it, ‘Humankind was created for communion, but is everywhere divided.’80 Out of the scattering comes the divine plan for gathering, however. The covenanting God addresses Abraham with a promise of blessing, but also of protection (Genesis 12). Abraham is to be protected from his enemies: those

77 Augustine viewed Cain as the Church’s ﬁrst persecutor. (Augustine, City of God (trans. H. Bettenson; Harmondsworth: Penguin, rev. edn, 1984), XVIII.51, p. 835.) 78 Jacques Ellul, The Meaning of the City (trans. Dennis Pardee; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 5. 79 As earlier noted, Anthony Giddens (1991) talks about late-modern culture as a ‘risk’ culture, in which management of risk forms an essential component of self-construction. However, modernity is good at micro-managing risk but not macro-managing it: there is also a renewed sense of apocalypticism associated with the side-effects of technology. Because individuals are ultimately powerless to alter this horrible element of risk, belief in fortuna has become a renewed – and necessary – feature of modern life. One of the reasons for secular distaste for strong religious belief is that religious fervour seems to increase the risk felt by the whole community: it is an unnecessary daring of fate to intervene. As Yeats wrote almost a century ago, ‘the best lack all conviction / while the worst are ﬁlled / with passionate intensity’ (‘The Second Coming’ in W. B. Yeats, The Collected Poems of W. B. Yeats (Ware: Wordsworth, 2000), p. 158). Civilization disappoints: we huddle together for safety, but our huddling together is actually rather dangerous (Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, pp. 109–43). 80 W. T. Cavanaugh, ‘The city – beyond secular parodies’, in John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward, Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology (Radical Orthodoxy Series; London: Routledge, 1998), p. 182.

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

67

who curse you, I will curse. Under the terms of the covenant, his safety will be secured by Yhwh.81 Again, as the Lord of the covenant of Sinai, Yhwh offers Israel protection from its enemies. It is to be secured from those who would threaten it. The decisive sin of the desert period was not disbelief in Yhwh’s willingness and capacity to provide, but rather doubt about his protection. The spies reported that the safety of the people was at grave risk: ‘We are not able to go up against this people, for they are stronger than we . . . the land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim . . . and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.’ (Num. 13.31-3) No reminder of the miraculous defeat of Pharaoh’s chariots seems to be evoked here as a counterpoint. In the Davidic era, the city of David becomes the focus of the theological reﬂection on safety. The Psalms celebrate the security of the citadel, but only in terms that displace it as the source of the security in favour of God himself. For example, Psalm 46 proclaims Yhwh himself as the hs,x]m; (‘shelter’) against the tumults and changes of the earth at its foundations. Doubtless, the geological imagery used in v. 1–3 reﬂects Israel’s geopolitical experience – as the Psalm continues, its concern is more evidently with uproar of the nations, one against the other. The testimony at the centre of the Psalm is to the God who lives in the centre of the city: ‘God is in the midst of the city; it shall not be moved’.82 The presence of God among his people is their guarantee of a sustained and safe life in the midst of international strife: he himself is their bG”f.mi( (‘stronghold’). Not only was Jerusalem as the holy city the source of divine protection; the Davidic King, whose royal seat this was, was the speciﬁc and particular addressee of God’s promise of protection. The narrative of David’s war with Saul is an embodiment for Israel of God’s miraculous protection of his anointed. Yhwh’s covenant with David in 2 Sam. 7 repeats and intensiﬁes the earlier covenant promises of blessing, protection and generation. The Land will be a place of no disruption from the enemies that surround it: And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afﬂict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. (2 Sam. 7.10-11) The eternal rule of the Son of David – including his castigation – is the guarantee of this promise. The Psalms then give voice to this hope from the perspective of the Messianic King in the face of the experience of radical threat. In taking up the Psalter we are immediately thrown into a world 81 Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel, pp. 302–3. 82 A sentiment famously expressed in Luther’s hymn Ein Feste Burg.

68

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

characterized by conﬂict, confusion, doubt, enmity and violence: the nations conspire against Yhwh and his anointed (Ps. 2.1-2), hoping to overthrow their rule. The Psalmist pleads with Yhwh for deliverance in the face of personal and national disaster. His character is known, especially his love for justice and his all-knowing perspective. So the Psalmist seeks refuge in God again and again. God is the rock (rWC – Ps. 19.14), the shield (!gEm’ Ps. 3.3), the fortress (bG”f.mi Ps. 59.16) and the refuge (sAnm’ – Ps. 59.16). Clearly, the afﬂiction of Israel at the hands of evildoers was not yet at an end. However, the city itself was not the refuge: Yhwh was. To mistake the concrete and tangible symbol of Yhwh’s presence for its actuality was to court destruction. There is a bewilderment at the heart of the Psalms at the levelling of the holy city: on the one hand, the grief at what has been lost and the plea with Yhwh to reappear; on the other, a continued hope that he will do so. Ezekiel’s viscerally awful vision of the glory of the Lord abdicating the city (Ezek. 10.1-22) is matched by his prophecy of its triumphant return to the new Temple (Ezek. 43ff). Under the pressure of exile, which was a profound personal and national experience of extreme vulnerability, the prophets variously call for a national repentance and a renewal of Israel’s worship; but also (and more signiﬁcantly) call on – with expectation of response – Yhwh himself to answer his own promises, not only to protect his people, but also to redeem them. Jesus addresses his teaching ﬁrst to people who are already aware of their insecurity, either through ill-health or demonic possession, or through political disempowerment, or even through the stigma created by their own actions; and second, as a challenge and judgement, to those for whom prestige or wealth have brought a certain defence against the turns of fate. We return to the story of Jesus’s encounter with the rich young ruler of the synoptic gospels. He was a man who had purchased for himself a security against and in the world, but clearly something still worried him. He sought a reassurance from Jesus that his heavenly place was also secured, through his outstanding performance of torah. It is not reassurance that he receives, however, but instead the disquieting call to ‘sell all you have, give to the poor and come follow me’. What Jesus adds to the torah is the impossible and unreasonable demand that the young man relinquish the security of his possessions and follow him. Even from this point of his ministry it must have been possible to see that the direction in which Jesus was headed was not away from but certainly towards trouble. The disciples’ cry of bewilderment – ‘[W]ho then can be saved?’ – reﬂects the entirely reasonable expectation that such a person’s wealth and status was evidence of a divine bestowal of blessing on a life honourably and wisely led. But it is in fact the disciples, who have left everything – house, wife, brothers and all – to follow Jesus, who can expect blessing, even now, evn tw/| kairw/| tou,tw|. Mark (10.30) has Jesus hastening to add that these blessings will come ‘with persecutions’ (meta. diwgmw/n). Luke for his part appends an ominous prophecy about Jesus’s impending death which should further prevent the dominical teaching being read as some kind of banal prosperity doctrine (Lk. 18.31-34). Blessing for the disciples is clearly not anything but that which is intermingled with the privations of the journey. In what then does the blessing evn tw/| kairw/| tou,tw| consist? The signiﬁcance

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

69

of this question for the themes of this study is clear: in what sense can a martyr understand him- or herself as blessed when faced with the destruction and obliteration of his or her life, his or her self? As Bonhoeffer wrote: The disciple simply burns his boats and goes ahead. He is called out, and has to forsake his old life in order that he may ‘exist’ in the strictest sense of the word. The old life is left behind, and completely surrendered. The disciple is dragged out of his relative security into a life of absolute insecurity (that is, in truth, into the absolute security and safety of the fellowship of Jesus), from a life that is observable and calculable (it is, in fact, quite incalculable) into a life where everything is unobservable and fortuitous (that is, into one which is necessary and calculable), out of the realm of the ﬁnite (which is in truth the inﬁnite) into the realm of inﬁnite possibilities (which is the one liberating reality).83 The blessing ‘in this age’, as far as Bonhoeffer is concerned, is the at once liberating and secure reality of life in the fellowship of Jesus. This is experienced ecclesially (the ‘fellowship of Jesus’); the renunciation of friends and family is met by the disciple being grafted into the family of God. However, this derives not from the earthly church as such but from its heavenly Lord. Security as Jesus (and subsequently Paul) preaches it is put on an entirely new footing: it is clearly not a removal from the realm of the ‘prince of the air’. It is rather the hiding of one’s life in the ascended Christ, a heavenly citizenship (Col. 3.3). That is, it is an eschatological security; a security transformed into hope, ﬁxing its gaze to the ascended Christ (like martyr Stephen under the hail of stones in Acts 7) and expecting his return. The exchange is one of an apparently calculable and manageable earthly security for the superior safety – and joy – of life with Christ rooted ﬁrmly in God’s vindication of him in his resurrection, his present heavenly rule and his promised return. To be a disciple is to be in a constant state of alertness and watchfulness, like the wise virgins expecting the bridegroom (Mt. 25.1ff). On the other hand, the false or temporary security espoused by those who do not watch but instead declare, ‘“[P]eace and security!”, when there is no peace!’ (1 Thess. 5.3, perhaps echoing Jer. 6.14; 8.11) will be exposed at the parousia.84

83 Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, p. 16. 84 In recent years scholars have described the cry of 1 Thess. 5.3 as a Roman imperial slogan – and downplayed the allusion to the Jeremiah text. Harrison, for example, argues that Paul is writing in opposition to Roman imperial eschatology and in reaction to the persecution of Christians conducted in these terms. (J. R. Harrison, ‘Paul and the imperial gospel at Thessaloniki’, JSNT, 25(1) (2002), pp. 71–96.) Oakes argues that Paul’s main purpose is, rather than polemics, a conceptual reconﬁguration on behalf of Christians. Thus he is ‘redrawing the map of the universe. The marginalized Christians are brought near to the centre. The centre itself is occupied by Jesus, whose cruciﬁxion had marginalized him as far as it was possible to do. In thus reorganizing space, and consequently the outcome of time, Paul decentres Rome. He de-centres its earthly power and the security it offers’ (Peter Oakes, ‘Re-mapping the universe: Paul and the emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians’, JSNT, 27(3) (2005), pp. 301–22 (322)). I am not clear that the two positions exclude each other;

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

70

The Ascension of Jesus, then, is the dogmatic underpinning of this assurance and this blessing. That the resurrected Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven ruling and interceding for his people is the ground on which the disciple may take her ﬁrst step away from the apparent security of home without knowing what lies ahead, or even around the next corner. Jesus’s Ascension is the harbinger of the coming of the Holy Spirit – God’s presence to inaugurate, unify and edify his people; to transform them, comfort them and indwell them.85 The gospel itself is a declaration that Christ is not only risen, but also Lord – not merely in a future sense, but evn tw/| kairw/| tou,tw/.| As the Word of God, the ascended Jesus continues to reveal God to human beings. By his Spirit he empowers the preaching of the gospel of himself. Clement of Rome called the gospel the sceptre by which Christ now rules over the nations and over all history.86 And the body of Christ, the ones gathered in his name, are equipped to proclaim the Word and teach the Scriptures until he comes to judge and renew his creation. Williams writes: Doctrinally, then, the Ascension . . . marks the culmination of the resurrection gospel – the universalising of Jesus’s relevance to all aspects of human life, individual and global; the present possibility of a share in Jesus’s loving union with his Father, i.e. a life of both trustfulness and authority; the crowning of the purpose of Jesus’s life and death in the restoration of fellowship between heaven and earth. It represents both the call to witness (and to recognise Christ in the world of which he is declared Lord) and the promise of transformed – ‘deiﬁed’ – life, as the ground and source of that witness.87 In the meantime, not only are the disciples of Christ called to follow after him, they are also sent by him into the world.88 The mission of Jesus further exposes his disciples to risk, because he sends them into situations where they will be opposed and rejected, beaten, tortured and killed.89 They are sent out ‘like

85

86

87 88 89

and, although the comparison with the imperial decrees is enlightening, I am not yet convinced that the Jeremiah passage is not also part of the background. Whatever the case, the martyrological implications for Christian disciples in the context of worldly claims for security are profound – a different kind of security is on view. Calvin could write of the necessity of Christ’s bodily ascension for the coming of his spiritual presence: ‘For Christ left us in such a way that his presence might be more useful to us . . . by his ascension he fulﬁlled what he had promised: that he would be with us even to the end of the world’ (Calvin, Institutes, II.xvi.14, pp. 522–3). ‘First Epistle to the Corinthians’, XVI, in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, The Apostolic Fathers (ed. Arthur Cleveland Coxe; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887a), p. 18. Rowan Williams, ‘Ascension’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press, 1983), pp. 43–5 (45). Balthasar, The Moment of Christian Witness, pp. 30–3. Douglas Farrow notes: ‘In biblical terms the ascension involves a real departure of Jesus of Nazareth. That is the basis on which we ﬁnd ourselves compelled to speak of two histories rather than one. Covenant history and world history have divided in this departure, for in and with Jesus the former has already reached its goal. In the resulting gap a place has opened up for the Eucharistic community as a genuinely

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

71

sheep into the midst of wolves’ (Mt. 10.16). They are not to creep unobserved into the corners of the world; rather, Christ calls them to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations, ‘in Jerusalem, Samaria and to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1.8) – which activity is most certainly for the public sphere and for the public good.90 The churches thus are rightly addressed by Peter as a diaspora (1 Pet. 1.1-2): they are a scattered gathering. As Augustine writes: Scripture tells us that Cain founded a city, whereas Abel, as a pilgrim, did not found one. For the City of the saints is up above, although it produces citizens here below, and in their persons the City is on pilgrimage until the time of its kingdom comes. At the time it will assemble all those citizens as they rise again in their bodies; and they will be given the promised kingdom, where with their Prince, ‘the king of ages’, they will reign, world without end.91 This understanding of security as grounded in the heavenly and not yet visible city is fundamental to the martyrological experience. Without it, there would almost be no Christian martyrdom. The temptation of the Christian when challenged with the removal of earthly securities, or when offered the possibility of a secure present and future, is to underestimate the radical insecurity of these solid things. The gospel expands space and foreshortens time, so there is now not a location in particular that is more (or less) the site of God’s encounter with human beings; in fact, any place on earth will do. The scattered disciples take refuge – as I have already noted – in the eschatological and heavenly Jerusalem:92 they are present with the ascended Christ in heaven, just as he is ‘with them always, to the end of the age’ by the power of his Spirit.93

90 91 92 93

new entity within world history, albeit a peculiar one with its peculiar view of the way things are’ (Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Signiﬁcance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 40). This ‘peculiarity’ may of course be received with hostility rather than curiosity. Hence the NT language of ‘light/salt of the world’, or the ‘royal priesthood’ of the church. Augustine, City of God, XV.1, p. 591. Heb. 12.22-3 In his reading of Psalm 27 with Augustine, Brock (2007: 161–2) confirms my point: ‘the love of earthly goods without the love of their giver turns into a fear of losing them. And fear of losing them develops into a social rationality – an ethos. Augustine asks, Do all those who trust in technology live better lives? Do all those with comprehensive insurance coverage avoid disaster? Does ever-increasing investment in medicine stop untimely death? Augustine saw clearly that whole societies are structured around the avoidance of pain, embodying the escape from their primal fears.’ In his engagement with Scripture, Augustine is alerted to the vulnerability of all human beings, and to the way in which social organization is designed to secure us from our nightmares. However, the church is not merely an alternative means of providing security, a perhaps better defence against our travails. ‘Augustine shows how this vision of the blessed life shapes the Christian understanding of the church, which is conceived not as a safe haven from the world but as the focal point of a praising people caught up in Christ’s service to the world’ (ibid., p. 163). This pilgrim

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

72

Eliot puts these words in Thomas’s mouth, in his ﬁnal sermon: Reﬂect now, how Our Lord Himself spoke of Peace. He said to His disciples, ‘Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you.’ Did he mean peace as we think of it: the kingdom of England at peace with its neighbours, the barons at peace with the King, the householder counting over his peaceful gains, the swept hearth, his best wine for a friend at the table, his wife singing to the children? Those men His disciples knew no such things: they went forth to journey afar, to suffer by land and sea, to know torture, imprisonment, disappointment, to suffer death by martyrdom . . . He gave to His disciples peace, but not peace as the world gives. (Interlude, 28-41)

F

The martyr looking forward

The Nussbaumian version of the good life (according to her reading of Aristotle and the tragedians) does not defy but rather seeks to manage, or cope with, the twists and turns of irascible luck. ‘Balance’ is the operative virtue; the subject requires a posture of ‘ﬂexible responsivity’. Practical wisdom demands that human beings sensibly acknowledge their limitations and their susceptibility to the dangers of their situation. Chance comprises the context for narrating oneself. This requires a broad, rather than a pared-down, portfolio of goods; in fact, a narrower vision (such as those of Antigone and – so it is claimed – Thomas) may prove extremely destructive – to the subject, but also to the community of which he or she is a part. Thomas is offered a nostalgic vision of the days when he reaped the beneﬁts of his practical wisdom and artful management of his situation in terms of security and ease and good company. It is, in other words, a response of fear. However, the theological history of civilization that I have sketched here reminds us that cities are founded under the sign of Cain: even the hope that by managing the peaceful existence of the polis security and delight might be maximized is not a broad vision after all but a remarkably limited, fearful and defensive one. In a critical gesture, then, the self-as-martyr testiﬁes to the provisionality of human systems of security relative to divine providence. The martyr-disciple renounces the safety and blessing apparently offered by these things in favour of an unseen destiny – the heavenly city. The world is vulnerable not merely to the vicissitudes of ‘fate’, or the crank handle of luck, but to the judgement of God himself. The vision is not merely a negative one, however. What we have seen from Augustine’s search for the self’s true home, and the scriptural account of the life of faith, is that the disciple’s life – potentially ‘lost’ in martyrdom – is an afﬁrmation, in due order, of the goods of human existence (in response to the second question of the self, that of ‘the good’). The follower of Jesus is church is not spared the terrible vicissitudes of earthly life – martyrdom is proof of that! – but it is secured in hope.

THE FIRST TEMPTATION

73

called out of the city, but only to be sent back – as a bearer of the gospel of the risen and ascended Christ. The next two chapters inquire, then, as to the relationship of the martyr with political and social order. What form should the return to the city take?

This page intentionally left blank

4

The second temptation: the temptation to collaborate and the mission of the martyrs

A

Introduction

Thus far I have argued that the martyr renounces the apparent safety and enjoyment of an earthly ‘home’ on account of the security offered in the risen and ascended Christ. Next, the Second Tempter offers Thomas the chance to collude with royal power, if he will only submit to it. Already, in the narrative of the Scillitan martyrs, we have seen how allegiance and identity have been linked (Chapter 1). Here once more is an invitation to narrate oneself in terms of political activity and responsibility – not merely safety and protection. The good on view, to which that possible self is committed, is the good of the political community. When Thomas makes to refuse it – on the basis that, as the Pope’s representative in England, he already holds the superior ‘power of the keys’ – the Tempter cleverly points out his power-lust. At issue is the question of political authority and its source – and thus in what sense the Christian self is to be understood in terms of citizenship in the world, if it is to be true to its essential cruciformity. We ﬁnd Richard Rorty asking not dissimilar questions. For him, metaphysical understandings of self and identity serve only to fuel social conﬂagrations. Far better, surely, to be divested of these and to pursue the common good as an ‘ironic self’, in collaboration and solidarity with the community. I shall contend in response that, in fact, the gospel of the martyrs provides for an account of political authority which explains that, though its mediation is twofold, it stems from a single source. The unity of this source enables the Christian to pursue the mission for which the disciples of Christ have been authorized without pursuing it as an alternative form of the power – to which the gospel is itself a challenge. The Christian’s identity is not necessarily compromised by an arrangement of peace with power, though that possibility is immanent. Martyrdom is not an indication that Christians should assume 75

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

76

an endlessly subversive posture towards the forms of secular rule that they encounter; but it is a witness to the spiritual danger of collaboration.

B i.

The second temptation

The return to glory?

Shall he who held the solid substance Wander waking with deceitful shadows? (I.339-40) The Second Tempter arrives in the guise of an anonymous royal politician who participated in the series of meetings at which Thomas’s breach with the King was sealed: We met at Clarendon, at Northampton, And last at Montmirail, in Maine. (I.324-5) These were unpleasant occasions, to be sure; in each instance, Archbishop Thomas was placed under pressure to accept the King’s point of view. The Tempter looks to balance these latter developments against the period when Thomas was Chancellor – the second most powerful man in the realm. Thomas’s renowned political skill could surely again be of use in service of the crown: You, master of policy Whom all acknowledged, should guide the state again. (I.329-30) He could still regain the Chancellorship, acknowledging that it was a mistake to resign this position on his being granted the see of Canterbury. As a politician and ruler he has a great deal to gain, as the Tempter explains: Power obtained grows to glory, Life lasting, a permanent possession. A templed tomb, monument of marble. Rule over men reckon no madness. (I.334-7) There is in a return to public ofﬁce the possibility of a lasting renown. The gentle alliteration of the words describing what Thomas is invited to imagine emphasizes their allure. He will be able to preserve his life; but more, he will be able to win the lasting acclaim of those he serves. Power produces the fruit of glory when exercised with skill. Thomas asks the Tempter how exactly this proposition is meant to entice a ‘man of God’ who has other-worldly concerns. The Tempter is frank in his reply: Sadness Only to those giving love to God alone. (I.338-9)

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

77

Here is a sharp critique of those whose other-worldliness crowds out any concern for the immediate. As Chancellor, Thomas was able to hold the ‘solid substance’; he dealt with the concrete and tangible realities of day-to-day politics. As Archbishop he now wanders ‘waking with deceitful shadows’ (I.340): he is a somnambulist among men, not really alive to the reality of his own existence. These are ‘deceitful shadows’: his talk of the love of God is merely a religious charade. Is service of the heavenly kind of any earthly use? The proposal is for a return to the partnership of rule with the King which he enjoyed as Chancellor. This power-sharing arrangement promises the opportunity to mete out justice: to ‘set down the great, protect the poor’ (I.346). Under the umbrella of the King’s rule, the Chancellor has the chance to ‘richly rule’ and to enact justice as best as he is able. This is all that can reasonably be asked from a man wanting to act righteously ‘beneath the throne of God’, surely. He does not have divine capacities of power and knowledge, but in the absence of the divine judgement the best he can do is to calculate justice as reasonably as he can. The Tempter says, bitingly: ‘[T]his is a sentence not taught in the schools’ (I.345). The study of theology in the mediaeval ‘schools’ was frequently caricatured as obscure and obsessed with metaphysical speculation – ‘shadows’, in other words. Yet the Tempter offers his temptation as an alternative ‘sentence’ – a theological proposition, in its own way. As he puts it: Disarm the rufﬁan, strengthen the laws, Rule for the good of the better cause, Dispensing justice make all even, Is thrive on earth, and perhaps in heaven. (I.348-51) The Tempter casts some doubt on the particulars of the hereafter. Who knows what the inscrutable divine will may decide? At the very least he for his part can offer a path by which Thomas can manage competing goods on earth; and – who knows? – perhaps God may be pleased with him if he does so. It seems irrational and fanatical for Thomas to read himself entirely in the light of the holy hereafter when there are concrete possibilities for good before him in the immediate present. ii. A ‘certain submission’ This power on offer comes at the price of a ‘certain submission’ (I.352) to the King, which is to say that power must submit to the source from which power comes, naturally. Thomas must give up the fantasy of his independent priestly or spiritual power which now leads him to an ‘earthly perdition’. This is historically relevant of course, because of the old issue in English political life of the right of the King to appoint ecclesiastical leaders. Power in the present is available for him who would wield it. The alternative is that he will be ‘Cabined in Canterbury, realmless ruler’ (I.362). There is menace in these words, too: Thomas must realize that, whatever the strength of his personal bravery, the forces of the King hold the upper hand, and that he could never hope to operate even on the Pope’s authority without the royal say-so. Whatever spiritual ‘power’ he might wield only exists as a derivative of the

78

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

King’s power. The church only has power because the King makes space for it; without this space, the church’s power would prove to have no place of its own. The King himself, because ‘men must manœuvre’ (I.364), needs to engage in some rearranging of his alliances. The pressure of wars abroad means that he is deﬁnitely seeking a more peaceful situation on the domestic front. He is thus willing to accept Thomas’s submission in the interests of ‘public proﬁt’ (I.366). Likewise, ‘intelligent self-interest’ (I.371) will overcome even the hatred of those bishops Thomas has previously excommunicated. iii. The assertion of the keys There is something else to the temptation. For his part, Thomas weighs in the balance his spiritual and ecclesiastical powers with the ‘punier power’ that would be his lot as the Chancellor. He claims that he already – as the holder of the keys of heaven and hell – is in possession of a power superior to that of the King. To accept the second temptation would be to descend in power, he asserts, not to increase in it. But this is a not altogether convincing speech: it smacks of bravado. Thomas’s claim to have power derived from the Pope scarcely alleviates this impression. The Tempter in his turn accuses Thomas of pride:

Then I leave you to your fate. Your sins soars sunward, covering kings’ falcons. (I. 383-4) Is arrogance surpassing royal arrogance the only way that Thomas can ﬁnd to defeat the second temptation? The assertion of the keys as the ultimate power-play in a wrestle with earthly power is deeply ambivalent, and arguably the source of Thomas’s troubles in the ﬁrst place. The ingenuity of the temptation is that it drives a wedge between the present and the hereafter, the earthly and the heavenly. It has two phases: ﬁrst, it asks Thomas to submit to the status quo, to accept the derivation of his power from the king. There are many possible beneﬁts to this arrangement, many genuinely good things that might result from this collusion. Besides, the love of God is not served in exclusion of the love of neighbour; it is in practical engagement with the needs of the neighbour that the love of God, whatever else that might be, ﬁnds its concrete expression. Justice needs the attention of its skilled practitioners equipped with sufﬁcient power to enact it. There is no reason to quiver at the prospect of a totalizing heteronomy, no need for late-modern hand-wringing about power discourses. The Chancellorship offered to Thomas is offered, on an entirely legitimate authority, that he might co-operate with rule for the good of the ruled. Here is an invitation to enter the sphere of public judicial activity for the good of all, rather than to stay concealed and protected behind cathedral walls. The condition on which the offer is to be accepted is that the ofﬁce of secular authority – the crown – must be allowed its rightful hegemony. The shadowy, ephemeral stuff of theological discourse is to be left to one side; the ‘sentences’ of Thomas are to be eschewed

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

79

in favour of the pragmatics of real-world justice and ‘political efﬁcacy’.1 This is by no means an outright denial of the possibility or the reality of theological talk, but a question of its usefulness in the present. Then, in a second phase, the Tempter sees that Thomas’s initial refusal of this offer is not as noble as it seems. It is not a renunciation of this kind of power, but an assertion of the Archbishop’s pride. That is to say, whether for the King or against the King, Thomas is still deﬁning himself in terms of power. He cannot be a critic of the corrupting effects of power and sequester himself from them. By wielding the power of the keys he does not escape the charge of power-hunger. He is accused by the Tempter of being insubordinate and proud, disobedient and rebellious. He is merely trying to outmuscle the King!2

C

Richard Rorty and pragmatism

The same temptation is offered in the late-modern liberal segregation of the sacred from the secular. Religious citizens are indeed invited – and even welcomed – to take their place in the business of public reasoning and the pursuit of justice, but on the condition that they speak and act in a non-theological way; that they observe a ‘certain submission’. For example, in his landmark book Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Richard Rorty argues that a pragmatic consensus should be the hallmark of contemporary political order. He makes his case initially against any foundationalist conception of language, or the self or society.3 The ﬁrst three chapters of his work propose that each of these are in fact ‘contingencies’ – that is, products of time and chance. Rather than being underpinned by eternal and universal truths, languages, selves and communities are produced by the conditions in which they are found. Rorty’s anti-Kantianism is, he maintains, also anti-Christian by default, because Kant’s universalism was something he inherited from Christianity. Rorty’s insistence is that metaphysical vocabulary not become determinative in the political sphere. As he explains it, human beings use a set of words, our ‘ﬁnal vocabulary’ with which we justify our actions, beliefs and lives.4 So, he readily acknowledges that we all in some way deploy foundationalist-sounding terms, for if we did not we would be unable to make a noncircular argument. Some of these ‘ﬁnal’ terms are fairly innocent (‘thin’): terms like ‘true’ or ‘good’. On the other hand, terms like ‘Christ’ or ‘England’ are more loaded: they bear more weight and hence are more potentially dangerous (for Rorty). Having terms like this needn’t matter, however, so long as you are an ‘ironist’. An ironist, as Rorty explains, is a person who has deep-seated and

1 Kenneth G. Asher, T. S. Eliot and Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 82. 2 Later, the Fourth Tempter will turn Thomas’s wielding of the keys into a temptation in and of itself (I.501ff – see Chapter 6). 3 Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). 4 Ibid., p. 73.

80

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

ongoing doubts about her own ﬁnal vocabulary, and is impressed by the vocabularies of others. Furthermore, the ironist is aware that using her present vocabulary will not put an end to the doubts she has; and, what is more, she does not think that her vocabulary is somehow more in touch with reality than those of others, or somehow given to a deeper metaphysical connection with the universe than the words and terms that others use. The ironist, who is a ‘nominalist and historicist’5, is never given to taking herself too seriously, and so never deeply committed at a fundamental level to the solidity of these vocabularies. These are not ﬁrm: they are radically contingent and bound to the circumstances of history and culture. While metaphysicians demand to know what is ‘true’, ironists get on with the more pressing and interesting and possible task of locating themselves and those around them within – and sometimes against – the traditions in which they stand. They read books not from within an encyclopaedic perspective (i.e. as ordered according to the various objects of knowledge), but rather as works relating primarily to one another. A book is more interesting (to Rorty at least) in terms of its relationship with other books than it is in its claim to describe ‘real life’, so-called. For the ironist, logic is subservient to dialectic: it is not the business of reﬁning propositions but rather the ﬁnding of new words for things that should occupy philosophical discourse. Thus, literary criticism becomes more important than what is traditionally known as ‘philosophy’. As he writes, ‘literary criticism does for ironists what the search for universal moral principles is supposed to do for metaphysicians’.6 Rorty’s ironist has political views, naturally. In an essay entitled ‘The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy’, Rorty puts forward the pragmatic argument that (as his title suggests) what really should concern us is the forging of democratic agreements on which some progress can be achieved, rather than speculation about unsolvable philosophical issues. 7 Liberal democracy should give up pretending that it is founded on grand metaphysical principles (like ‘rights’ and so forth) and instead realize that it is merely the best working solution to the problem of political community. So, he writes: The philosophical tradition has assumed that there are certain topics (for example, ‘what is God’s will?’ ‘What is man?’ . . .) on which everyone has, or should have, views and that these topics are prior in the order of justiﬁcation to those at issue in political deliberation. This assumption goes along with the assumption that human beings have a natural center that philosophical inquiry can locate and illuminate. By contrast, the view that human beings are centerless networks of beliefs and desires and that their vocabularies and opinions are determined by historical 5 Ibid., p. 74. 6 Ibid., p. 80. 7 Richard Rorty, ‘The priority of democracy to philosophy’, in Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 175–96.

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

81

circumstance allows for the possibility that there may not be enough overlap between two such networks to make possible agreement about political topics, or even proﬁtable discussion of such topics.8 Truth, in the Platonic sense, is ‘simply not relevant to democratic politics’. Neither is a notion of the self, even a very loose and postmodern one. You just don’t need to bother yourself with it, according to Rorty. He goes on: The encouragement of light-mindedness about traditional philosophical topics serves the same purposes as does the encouragement of light-mindedness about traditional theological topics. Like the rise of large market economies, the increase in literacy, the proliferation of artistic genres, and the insouciant pluralism of contemporary culture, such philosophical superﬁciality and light-mindedness helps along the disenchantment of the world. It helps make the world’s inhabitants more pragmatic, more tolerant, more liberal, more receptive to the appeal of instrumental rationality.9 Rorty’s attack is on just the sort of stubbornness that Thomas represents: his refusal to think ironically about his ‘ﬁnal knowledge’ vocabulary; his inability to recognize the provisionality and limits of his own world-view vis-à-vis other possible world-views, and his reluctance to smooth the wheels of the existing (and, to all appearances, functioning) political machinery. Rorty does not demand that religious people deny their metaphysical commitments, but rather only that they stand aloof from them. What martyrs lack is a sense of humour – they lack self-awareness, which makes them poor, and even dangerous, citizens. A martyr is not apparently a very light-minded person; nor is she very ironic about her ‘ﬁnal knowledge’ commitments. Neither does the martyr come across as particularly humble. In refusing to become a valuable contributor to the existing social order, the Christian is apparently guilty of pride (just as the Tempter says). The secret desire to be proud has trumped the call for the Christian to serve; and so, he is undermined on his own terms. Thomas is not humble enough (it seems) to heed the call of his own gospel – to seek justice and beneﬁt the common good. It is Rorty who apparently offers the more Christian path to the Christian: would it not be true Christian witness to shun pride and pursue service? Pragmatism evinces, after all, a metaphysical humility, and seeks a contribution to the society that already seems to be working. Just as for Thomas under the King, under the liberal hegemony of the Rortian species the disciple of Christ is invited to collaborate with the prevailing social order for the common good. The condition on which such an offer depends is a ‘certain submission’: in this case, to accept the circumscription of theological talk – to be Saul and not Paul, at least in public.10 In addition 8 Ibid., p. 191. 9 Ibid., p. 193. 10 John Rawls, whom Rorty counts as an ally, once wrote: ‘[F]or the purposes of public life, Saul of Tarsus and Paul the Apostle are the same person. Conversion is irrelevant

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

82

to this submission to the mode of language, this also means a submission to the ways in which society is already functioning. There seem to be only two alternatives for the disciple: acceptance, with its visible beneﬁts and its apparently small condition; or (as for Thomas) rejection of the offer outright on the grounds that it stems from a source of power with which the Christian should have nothing whatsoever to do. Christians are then vulnerable to the accusation of a Salman Rushdie: namely, that their real interest is sectarian and divisive rather than universal and conciliatory.

D

The martyr, power and authority

i. Addressing the question Could we address this dual temptation in terms of the historical forms in Christendom that it resembles – of the Erastianism of (say) Richard Hooker on the one hand, and Hildebrandian Papalism on the other? The problem for Thomas (which is then our problem) would then be to ﬁnd some resolution to the crisis – some mediating position that escapes the traps of both and perhaps incorporates the insights of both. Quite apart from the anachronism inevitable in such a polarity, there is also the uncomfortable truth that there have been and indeed still are many more permutations than are represented by these two. The arrangement of peaceful terms between churches and states has such a variegated history that to imagine that there are merely these two from between which a third universal and deﬁnitive position can be forged is unrealistic. In any case, the issue that will confront the Christian believer whatever the legal particulars or historical circumstances is: must all authority and power on earth be refracted through the prism of the state? Whether the Christian steps forward to accept an offer of co-operation or remains deﬁantly separate (as either papalist or sectarian), is he not actually trapped into accepting the reality of the situation: namely, that (for all his high-minded talk) he is a guest of the government of the land, that he inhabits a space given to him and protected for him by the apparatus of an earthly kingdom and one that may, with the stroke of a pen, be taken from him by law or by force? Must he not accept that his right to preach about the higher authority and the kingdom of heaven is circumscribed at every point by the kingdom of the world? Can the Christian, then, count himself a citizen of the earthly kingdom and exercise the rights and duties of such citizenship without fatally compromising his witness to a heavenly citizenship – that which names his own identity? That line of questioning lies on the one side. On the other lies the accusation that, whether in submission to the state or not, the church is still a wielder of power and in fact rather delighted to be so. It has no moral high ground on which to stand in separation from the business of power. Here then is the problem: can the church only respond to power with a power of its own? How is it not then just merely another ideology, and thus subject to our public, or institutional, identity’ (John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 49).

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

83

to a power-critique (if one is to be made) too? How is it not just as bad – if not worse than – legitimate and concrete political power? Under the force of this accusation, the ‘shadow-speech’ of Thomas – his theological discourse – becomes a self-serving language (as Rorty suspects it might). In response to the double-bind presented by these questions, I will argue in this section that Christian martyrdom (and the identity that it indicates) has never been a declaration of the illegitimacy or even irrelevance of the emperor’s rule (or even of liberal order) and the positing of an alternative. Rather, it is an announcement that all authority in heaven and on earth has a single source – from an individual who identiﬁes as a subject of that source. Martyrdom is not, then, a designation of a perpetual subversiveness. However, it is an enactment of the belief that authority on the earth has a dual mediation – the ruler has his commission to judge and restrain, whereas the disciple has her commission to witness. My ﬁrst task (in Responding to the peace) shall be to inquire of the hostility that Jesus himself said was endemic to the life of his disciples. Then I shall examine Paul’s construal of political power in Romans 13, the locus classicus. Next, I shall take up Augustine’s observation that the cause rather than the suffering is what made for true martyrdom. Lastly (in The power of the keys), with the help of William Tyndale and Oliver O’Donovan, I will address the nature of that authority delegated to the disciples of Christ. ii. Responding to the peace Christian identity is primordially and inescapably cruciform: it testiﬁes on the one hand to the divine mercy, but on the other to a human rejection of that mercy. In Matthew’s gospel we discover how close to the identity of the believer the idea of witness under trial is: the experience of rejection is not to catch him or her by surprise because of a close identiﬁcation with the Christ who was likewise rejected, even by his own. Matthew’s collection of Jesus’s teachings about mission (Mt. 10.1-42), which he dramatizes as an address to his apostles on the cusp of their mission to Israel, serves also as a word to the apostles’ church as it tries to live out its witness under the conditions of rejection. The cross is of course the ‘underlying idea’ of the speech (as Balthasar notes).11 It is part of Matthew’s intention that his readers receive encouragement in their identiﬁcation with Christ in knowing that if they are rejected, then indeed it is Christ who is being rejected. The tou,twn tw/n evlaci,stwn (Mt. 25.45) and the tw/n mikrw/n tou,twn (Mt. 10.42) are not merely the suffering poor but those who represent Christ as his witnesses and are rejected on his account: they are offered his vindication in the eschatological court of 11 ‘It [the cross] constitutes the form of the Christian life, the life which ﬂows directly from it. It is the indelible mark of the world’s judgment of Christ and his followers’ (Balthasar, The Moment of Christian Witness, p. 19). Balthasar’s reminder is valuable, because of the possibility that a society may say that it accepts the witness of the martyrs in terms of abstract concepts like ‘justice’ or ‘rights’, and not in terms of its witness to Christ as the concrete embodiment of the will of God. That is, it is the speciﬁcally evangelical content of the Christian evangel that is excised. The testimony is understood as a testimony to a general type of ethics rather than a speciﬁcally enacted divine judgement and salvation; to ‘values’ rather than discipleship and witness (ibid.).

84

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

judgement. The hostility that is received by the apostles as they are handed over to councils and ﬂogged in synagogues emanates from within Israel itself, with the collaboration of the Gentile authorities: the rejection of the witnesses is close to home. It is the rejection of brother by brother, son by father, daughter by mother. Jesus is hailed here as a ﬁgure of division, bringing not peace, but a sword (Mt. 10.34); and so it will be for his followers, for ‘a disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master Beelzebub, how much more will they malign those of his household!’ (Mt. 10.24-5). Being now a member of this new household contrasts with – and is held as some comfort for – the fact that evcqroi. tou/ avnqrw,pou oi` oivkiakoi. auvtou/ (Mt. 10.36). Hospitality towards the disciples and their message – the poti,sh . . . epoth,rion yucrou/ (Mt. 10.42) – is the sign of the promised eschatological vindication, just as rejection is the sign of coming judgement. Though Jesus brings the sword on earth, and not peace, it is not because his followers are wielders of the sword or the provocateurs of conﬂict. The violent rejection they receive is despite their innocence: they are sent out as sheep amongst wolves and are to be innocent as doves (Mt. 10.16). It is a statement about the way things are, rather than an incitement to violent conﬂict. In any case, as Jesus says here, before the king it will be ‘not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you’ (Mt. 10.20). That is to say, the witness itself is not the act of a human person, or a mark of his followers’ zeal to make themselves martyrs. It is the testimony of the Father by the Spirit to the Son; those who so testify cannot avoid drawing on themselves the hatred of ‘the world’. What of the moment when the conﬂict dissipates and the persecution appears to end? The Edict of Milan (AD 313) was the surprising vindication of the martyr’s cause, it seemed. The NT itself does not foresee a triumph of this scale. It is scarcely imaginable for Paul as he pens the 12th and 13th chapters of Romans that the Imperator might in fact invite the active participation of Christians in his government and offer them a share in his rule; or that he would pursue a role for himself in the church. The u`potasse,sqw of the believer to the evxousi,aij u`perecou,saij (Rom. 13.1) is in surprising recognition of the divine source of the evxousi,a. This is not the default position in the NT by any means, and certainly it was not the experience of the early Christians, who could point rather to their experience of unjust rejection at the hands of the rulers, who seemed (to the martyrologists) to have set their faces determinedly against the Almighty and his Holy One. In fact, as I have already noted, the church had its existence from the fact of Jesus’s sham trial and execution: it knew of itself from this moment of victimization. Its earliest narratives testiﬁed to its angularity to the government and citizens of the Empire. Two features of Paul’s thought are salutary. First, the apostle does not lapse into a dualism at this point and comfort the believer by pitting Caesar’s regime holus-bolus against Christ’s. He is consistent to his own statement of

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

85

the unity of the power of God, his earlier theme. God has no favourites: the gospel is for all, Jew ﬁrst, then Gentile. His judgement is similarly universal in scope; that the ruler is his unwitting agent in judgement is not as surprising as it might initially sound. But what is more, qeou/ ga.r dia,kono,j evstin soi. eivj to. avgaqo,n (Rom. 13.4) The ruler is the servant of God for the good of the Christian! There is a stern warning to o` avntitasso,menoj not to resist the authority, which is to say that the superiority of the authority of God does not obliterate the operations of human authority. The Christian is in the hands of the ruler, is properly subject to him, does inhabit a socio-political space protected (or not) by state power. But this occurs only because the ruler in his turn is the servant of the Almighty God, from whom all authority stems. Secondly, Paul refuses to cast the Christian in the role of the victim seeking vengeance (see Rom. 12.17ff).12 The comfort comes not from knowing that one is rightly a victim and so justiﬁed in seeking reprisal, but rather from the controlling hand of providence. The ruler – even the vain and idolatrous emperor – was unwittingly the servant of God, doing the business of a deity he did not even acknowledge. These were not his ancestral gods, but the God of a very minor group indeed – not even of a nation, or perhaps only derivatively of a nation. Yet their insigniﬁcance was not evidence of the impotence or disdain of their God. That power had been remarkably demonstrated in the resurrection of the Son of David (Rom. 1.1-5) and the passing of all authority to him. The Christian identity, then, sprang not just from identiﬁcation with a victim qua victim, but with one who as a victim was also vindicated. This was not a novelty. The court tales of the book of Daniel provided for intertestamental Jews (and for the early Christians) both a pattern for encounter with foreign rule and also great comfort that the invincibility of the empires of the East was largely an illusion.13 Daniel and his friends witness in each case to the provisionality of the ruler’s rule, but do so in service of the ruler himself! The humour of the stories derives from the depiction of human power over-reaching itself and being thwarted, while Yhwh’s representatives appear completely unrufﬂed. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue with feet of clay (Daniel 2) is mysterious to his magicians and sorcerers and terriﬁes the mighty king who need fear no one. It is the man of God to whom is given the insight and wisdom to interpret the meaning of the dream to the king: his role as a servant to the king is to remind the king of his personal and political 12 Of course, we are reminded that this is one of Rushdie’s strongest points against the martyred self, namely that it merely perpetuates sectarian violence through appeal to identity through victimization and thus a ‘just’ cause for vengeance. This reading of (especially recent) history is contested – as Benedict XVI writes: ‘In the last century (as in every century), it was in fact the testimony of the martyrs that limited the excesses of power . . .’ (Joseph Ratzinger, Values in a Time of Upheaval (New York: Crossroad, 2005), p. 39). 13 For example: Shelton, in his recent book, demonstrates that, in some of the oldest extant Christian commentary of Scripture, Hippolytus of Rome reads the book of Daniel through the motif of martyrdom in order to encourage his readers in the time of the Severan persecution. (W. Brian Shelton, Martyrdom and Exegesis in Hippolytus: An Early Church Presbyter’s Commentary on Daniel (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2008).)

86

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

mortality.14 In the end, the king accepts this verdict, remarkably: [T]hen King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, worshipped Daniel, and commanded that a grain offering and incense be offered to him. The king said to Daniel, ‘Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery!’ Then the king promoted Daniel, gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. Daniel made a request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the affairs of the province of Babylon. But Daniel remained at the king’s court. (Dan. 2.46-9) No doubt to hear Yhwh’s praises on the lips of a pagan tyrant was a delight to the book’s ﬁrst audiences. There is no refusal from Daniel of the king’s homage, nor any sense that, in accepting his high position, Daniel is merely out to protect the interest of the Jews.15 Two stories (coupled together in the book’s chiastic structure) narrate the vulnerability and even the fall of pagan rulers (chs 4 and 5). In chs 3 and 6 we are given the two narratives of most interest to the present theme: the ﬁery furnace and the lion’s den. In each instance, the ruler is tempted in his vanity to over-reach himself and demand not just homage but worship from his subjects. This is exactly what the servants of Yhwh cannot give him, though the cost is potentially very great. Their insistence on the truth that the sovereign Lord is the only appropriate focus of human worship in this way is a lesson gratefully learned by the rulers, who then decide that the truly loyal ministers of their government are in fact these Israelites – and that the native Babylonian advisers are ﬁnally deserving of the very punishment they wish for Daniel and his friends. At issue, notably, is right worship, not merely a moral challenge of some kind. The young men give witness to the truth and reality of Yhwh’s rule, speciﬁcally. They do not go into the furnace, or into the lion’s cave, in order merely to critique and expose tyranny in its egotism and corruption. This indeed they do, but only as a corollary to their submission to the ultimate power and authority and worthiness of Yhwh as the supreme and sole object of human worship.16 What this means is that the martyr does not witness to his or her rejection only, as if the suffering was a sign only of itself. Augustine’s anti-Donatist dictum, non poena sed causa facit martyrum (‘it is not the punishment but the cause that makes a martyr’), safeguards against this tendency. The Christian is commissioned speciﬁcally to witness to the rule of the risen and ascended Lord

14 It is a lesson for Daniel, in turn, to realize that, after all (as Goldingay (2006b: 777) puts it), the God of Israel ‘is involved in Babylonian politics’. 15 This is more the emphasis of Esther, and of 1 & 2 Maccabees. 16 For an allusion to Daniel 3 in the martyr-acts, see ‘The martyrdom of Fructuosus and his companions’, IV, in Musurillo (2000: 180–81). See also Clement’s ‘The ﬁrst epistle to the Corinthians’, 45 (ibid., p. 39); and Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, XXXIII, p. 63. Eliot shows awareness of this tradition by making the Knights call to Thomas, ‘Come down Daniel to the lion’s den . . .’ (II.359).

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

87

(see Mt. 28.18-20). ‘Witness’ is a communicative act (by deﬁnition). Because of the speciﬁc content of that witness – because it refers directly to an authority to which all rulers are subject, and from which in fact they derive whatever authority they possess – bloody martyrdom may be the means by which it is enacted. If on the one hand John of Patmos accentuates the beastly aspect of the imperium, it is a tone moderated by the refusal of Paul to see the powers as falling outside divine providence. For both, the expectation was that hostility to those bearing the Messianic name would be a feature of the new age. This is as it turned out, although sporadically rather than consistently, in the ﬁrst few centuries. For some Christians, the lack of hostility was problematic, so accustomed had they become to identifying with the idea of martyrdom. The longing for a martyr’s death was so strong that Augustine, for one, spent not a little effort in reminding Christians that martyrdom was not to be invited.17 Origen, in his Exhortation to Martyrdom, falls just short of recommending Christians provoke it where it is not on offer. The martyrs had been so exalted that it was hard to think of martyrdom as not the norm, and Origen declared it a sure path to heaven.18 Thus the conversion of Constantine, which itself almost immediately followed a period of intense persecution (that of Diocletian), was not an eventuality for which there were obvious theological resources. As O’Donovan writes: ‘[T]here was no revealed political doctrine in the NT, prescribing how the state was to be in Christ.’19 The Christians were as unprepared for the peace as they had been prepared for the war. Where it had been the tendency prior to AD 315 to demonize the imperium as implacably hostile to the kingdom of God (forgetful of Romans 13), in the new dispensation it was perhaps rather the tendency to sacralize it.20 The temptation was to see this as the moment of victory – that here was an end of the need for mission because the mission had apparently been accomplished. It fell to Augustine to clarify the theology of martyrdom. Especially, it was the Donatist crisis that sharpened Augustine’s reﬂection on the theme in the period AD 410–415. For the Donatists, literal and bloody martyrdom was a measure of the authenticity and purity of their Christianity, in contrast to that of the tainted Church with its traditores. For his part, Augustine emphasized the necessity of a true faith and the unity of the Church for authentic Christian

17 See Christel Butterweck, ‘Martyriumssucht’ in der alten Kirche?: Studien zur Darstellung und Deutung frühchristlicher Martyrien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995). In ‘The martyrdom of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice’ (Musurillo, 2000: 27–9), which tells of the events dated to the period just after Polycarp, Agathonice, a witness to the deaths of Carpus and Papylus, calls out, ‘Here is a meal that has been prepared for me. I must partake and eat of this glorious repast!’ and ‘threw herself joyfully upon the stake’, to the horror of the onlookers. Cyprian would not have approved: in ‘The acts of Cyprian’, II, (ibid., p. 171), he pre-empts Augustine by declaring ‘our discipline forbids anyone to surrender [to martyrdom] voluntarily’. We shall have occasion to revisit this theme in Chapter 6. 18 Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, XIV, p. 51. 19 O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations, p. 219. 20 For example, in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea (Frend, The Rise of Christianity, p. 522).

88

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

martyrdom. Suffering itself was not enough – in fact, Augustine vigorously opposed the Donatist ﬁxation on suffering as an end in itself. Without love, suffering was meaningless – therefore, the schismatics who attacked the unity of the church could not claim the title martyrs because they lacked caritas. It was the cause, not the suffering, which made a martyr. As Paul wrote, in a passage that fascinated Augustine: ‘if I am handed over to be burned and have not love, I proﬁt nothing’ (1 Cor. 13.3). The long Christian tradition of glorifying suffering had been a false trail – pathologically so. Truth and love were the non-negotiables, not pain. Need a martyr suffer then at all? Augustine afﬁrmed that when the moment arrives, death must be endured for the sake of righteousness: [the Mediator] has shown that death itself, although it is the punishment for sin (a punishment which he paid for us, though being himself without sin), is not to be avoided by sinning but rather, if occasion offers, to be endured for the cause of right. For it is just because he died, and his death was not the penalty of sin, that he was able by dying to pay the price of our sins.21 There is no question but that for Augustine the literal martyr follows the highest calling for the Christian. However, when the persecutions had ended, what was to become of martyrdom, which had been such a feature of Christian self-identity in the ﬁrst three centuries?22 Could there be a retention in some form of the martyrological impetus without the need for shedding of blood? One Christian answer, as Judith Perkins observes, was that the martyrological spirit was sublimated into ascetic practices as a way of replicating the tests – and so the sense of identity – of the days of the arena.23 But this was not quite Augustine’s teaching. As he explained, divine providence had allowed persecutions in order that the number of martyrs or witnesses for the truth might be completed or consecrated, and that by them proof might be given that we must endure all bodily sufferings in the cause of the holy faith and for the commendation of the truth.24 The martyrs had shown how bodily suffering – indeed, life in the body itself – was to be endured in the period when persecution had ceased.25 21 Augustine, City of God, X.24, p. 405. 22 ‘The relating of the stories of the martyrs in this early literature, up to the mid third century, is an essential part of the Church’s self-identiﬁcation, part of the deﬁnition of the vocabulary of being an ekklesia of aliens, the citizens’ assembly of the non-citizens, a people whose political legitimacy and loyalty lay outside the imperial system’ (Rowan Williams, Why Study the Past? (Sarum Theological Lectures; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2005), p. 36). 23 Judith Perkins, The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 202. 24 Augustine, City of God, X.32, p. 421. 25 Augustine’s North African predecessor, Cyprian, had made a similar point, writing:

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

89

In the new era, however, the war was to be waged inwardly. Trials and temptations were not found to be lacking now that the external threat had diminished. Now, ‘temptations were persecutions’, as Straw puts it.26 The lesson of the martyrs was there for the Christian to learn the virtues of self-sacriﬁce and patience. This was not a spiritual martyrdom only – the Christian life would proceed on the same basis, in the same pattern, as it had in the era of the martyrs of blood; and it would still involve painful renunciations, tests of courage and love and the comfort of participation in Christ and the church. Augustine had seen that a bloody martyrdom, far from being evidence of a supreme level of sanctiﬁcation (as with Origen and Eusebius), was merely the possibility latent within every Christian life. The martyrs are humanly frail: ‘they are martyrs, but they are men’. They fear death, and do not will to suffer.27 I have argued that, far from it being the case that the authority of those who witness to Christ is dependent on and allowed for and even created by the state, it is in fact the authority of the state that is dependent and derivative. The martyr continually reminds the ruler that his or her power and authority to rule is not self-established but originates with the Sovereign God, the Father of Jesus Christ. Martyrdom stood as a sign against Rome’s failed attempt to victimize Christians – to irradicate an identity so construed. Though the refusal to obey Caesar was (it seemed to the pagans) an irrational act, it witnessed to a higher rule, and by doing so, undid that rule’s claim to absoluteness.28 It was not surprising for Augustine – indeed, it made good theological sense – that the rule of God should manifest itself in history (though not yet absolutely), and that this should prove threatening to those who ruled the Earthly City. As such, martyrdom is not merely a stance of eternal dissidence; it is a witness to the rule of God in Christ. For Oliver O’Donovan: since true martyrdom is a powerful force and its resistance to Antichrist effective, the church must be prepared to welcome the homage of the kings when it is offered to the Lord of the martyrs.29 What this means is that the church of the martyrs could approach the moment of peace without necessarily losing its identity, deeply rooted as it was in the cross of Christ. As long as it remembered its own testimony to the manner of

26

27 28

29

‘God does not ask for our blood, but for our faith’ (‘On the mortality’, XVII, in Cyprian, The Writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (trans. Robert Ernest Wallis; Ante-Nicene Christian Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1870), p. 173). Martyrdom is God’s gift to bestow, not a human gift to seize. Carole Straw, ‘Martyrdom’, in Allan Fitzgerald and John C. Cavadini (eds), Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 538– 42 (540). I will have more to say on this theme in Chapter 7. Ibid., pp. 538–42. These words paraphrase Stanley Hauerwas, After Christendom?: How the Church is to Behave if Freedom, Justice, and a Christian Nation are Bad Ideas (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1991), p. 33. O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations, p. 215.

90

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

the enthronement of the Prince of peace, it could regard the temporal ruler as dia,kono,j soi. eivj to. avgaqo,n. As long as it remembered that the authorization of human power on the earth by God included the authority given to the disciples of Jesus for its evangelical mission, then it need not necessarily remain in an attitude of deﬁance. This would be merely petulant. Furthermore, the Rortian (and Rushdiean) accusation against such apparently non-ironic behaviour – that it exhibits a deeply held misanthropy – would be conﬁrmed. Peaceful co-existence, even co-operation, is not ruled out tout court. But the warnings against trading one’s identity away are strong. What is then required is a description of the nature of this authority as it is given to the fellowship of disciples in the gospel of Jesus Christ, ‘risen from the dead, descended from David’ (2 Tim. 2.8). In the next section this will be my task, with special reference to the clavis potentiae, the power of the keys. What are the politics of witness to Christ? What kind of citizen (i.e. a self vis-à-vis other selves) is the martyr? Is the martyr’s witness a testimony to the power of God for the good of the polis and not just in the pursuit of the interests of a Christian subgroup? What I shall argue here, from Scripture itself and with assistance from the English translator and martyr William Tyndale, is that the followers of Christ are authorized to manifest his powerful and universal rule by means of the communicative and persuasive acts of witness. This may sometimes result in their deaths. iii. The power of the keys As Stanley Hauerwas puts it, the church of the martyrs ‘necessarily manifests God’s rule’, even though it does not itself rule.30 The temptation, as we have seen, is for the Christian to believe that God’s rule has only a single manifestation on the earth, and that coercion is the only manner in which divine rule is expressed. The temptation is, on the one hand, for the church to forget its separate divinely derived authority to witness; and, on the other, to forget the cruciformity of this task. To return momentarily to Eliot’s drama: Thomas’s immediate response to the offer of submitting to the rule of the King is to ﬂex his ecclesiastical muscles – the power of ‘the keys of the kingdom’. The ‘power of the keys’ as delivered by Jesus to the apostle Peter in Mt. 16.18-19 has been given as the traditional biblical basis for papal authority, along with the Johannine version of the commissioning of the apostles (Jn 20.21-23).31 The Matthaean pericope (Mt. 16.13-20), however, concerns Peter as a person, but gives no hint of the establishment of an ofﬁce. Rather, the true foundation for the church is in the content of his declaration – his identiﬁcation of Jesus as ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt. 16.16).32 30 Hauerwas, After Christendom?, p. 38. 31 Since the ﬁfth century, but particularly signiﬁcant is the use Gregory VII makes of this text in defence of singular authority of the Roman papacy. (Gregory VII, ‘Dictatus Papae’, in Oliver O’Donovan and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan, From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought 100–1625 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 240–49.) 32 As Ulrich Luz argues, Matthew used this story to source the foundation of the growing church back to Peter’s confession of Christ and Christ’s afﬁrmation of it. Peter’s uniqueness is what is presented, rather than the need to found an ofﬁce; the

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

91

The declaration has a divine origin: it is revealed to Peter by o` path,r mou o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j (Mt. 16.17). On the foundation of this declaration – a declaration that Peter makes, granted – the church stands; but it is on the basis of Peter’s evangelical declaration, not in the ofﬁce he later may have held. It is not, then, the church qua church that will stand against the gates of Hades; rather, it is the declaration of Jesus’s messiahship, ﬁrst made by Peter, upon which it is established and by which it is secured. (The auvth/j in v. 18 may be taken to have as its antecedent tau,th| th/| pe,tra| rather than th.n evkklhsi,an.) This changes the way in which ta.j klei/daj are understood (Mt. 16.19); it is the apostolic witness which binds and looses, not a separate act of judgement somehow delegated to the institution of the church aside from that which Christ himself enacts (see also Mt. 18.18).33 In Jn 20.21-23 (as Luther’s Small Catechism notes34) the authority to forgive sins – and to withhold forgiveness – is not bestowed on Peter alone, but given with the Spirit by the Risen Christ to the disciples at the moment of their commissioning. Luther, who obviously wished to undermine the exegetical foundations of the Petrine succession, understood this as the clavis potentiae although the ‘keys’ themselves are not mentioned in John’s gospel. What is evident is the delegation of an authority to the disciples. This authority is not given aside from the Spirit: it is not an authority exercised in independence from or outside the divine will, but rather only in conformity with it. The text gives no support to the church leader who would exercise the clavis potentiae to assert his own authority. Neither is it necessarily an exclusively apostolic authority: the Twelve are not all present (Thomas arrives late!)35 and the term maqhtai. in John’s ordinary usage refers to the community as a whole rather than the Twelve exclusively. In the life and theology of William Tyndale, Bible translator, many of the themes of this study converge; and in his The Obedience of a Christian Man (1528) we ﬁnd a powerful and polemical theological treatise written by a person under pressure from both Pope and monarch. He would later be martyred himself. Under the inﬂuence of Luther, Tyndale is hostile to the Papacy; but he does not chart an Erastian course as some later Protestants did under more sympathetic political conditions. These conditions forced a theological consideration of the nature of authority which in its own way is a signiﬁcant document in the coming to birth of modern political thought.36 Tyndale pays

33

34 35

36

foundation, after all, cannot grow. This ‘corresponds to the tendency of the text itself’ (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary (ed. Helmut Koester; trans. James E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), p. 369. See Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), pp. 425–6. See also Calvin’s discussion in Institutes, III.iv.14–15, p. 639. More recently, Luz (2001: 364) has interpreted the ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ as rabbinic terms for teaching and interpretation of the law. Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959). Bultmann, however, sees this as just a piece of slipshod editing. (Rudolf K. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. Rupert Hoare, John Riches and George R. Beasley-Murray; Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), pp. 689–90.) So David Daniell, Tyndale’s most recent biographer, in his introduction to William

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

92

Matthew 16 particular attention, arguing that the ‘rock’ refers to Christ rather than the church. The power of binding and loosing are an authority to declare the word of God in rebuking the unrepentant and declaring forgiveness to the penitent. As he writes: the loosing . . . is nothing but forgiving of sin to them that repent through preaching of the promises which God hath made in Christ in whom only we have all forgiveness of sins, as Christ interpreteth it and as the Apostles and prophets practiced it.37 Tyndale recalls Paul’s description of this dual function of the preaching of the law and the promises in 2 Cor. 3.38 It is in the act of preaching law and gospel that the clavis potentiae is exercised: it is not a separate judicial function of some kind. So, to illustrate: Peter in the second of the Acts practiced his keys and by preaching the law brought the people into the knowledge of themselves and bound their consciences, so that they were pricked in their hearts and said unto Peter and to the other apostles, what shall we do? Then brought they forth the key of the sweet promises saying: repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.39 From the very ﬁrst, the exercise of power and judgement by Peter and the apostles was for the task of persuasion by them as the designated emissaries of Jesus Christ: Christ’s authority which he gave to his disciples, was to preach the law and to bring sinners to repentance, and then to preach unto them the promises which the father had made unto all men for his sake. And the same to preach only sent he his Apostles. As a king sendeth forth his judges and giveth them his authority saying: What ye do that do I. I give you my full power. Yet meaneth he not by that full power, that they should destroy any town or city, or oppress any man or do what they list or should reign over the lords and dukes of his realm and over his own self. But giveth them a law with them and authority to bind and loose as farforth as the law stretcheth and maketh mention: that is, to punish the evil, that do wrong, and to avenge the poor that suffer wrong. And so far as the law stretcheth, will the king defend his judge against all men. And as the temporal judges bind and loose temporarally, so do the priests spiritually and no other ways.40

Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man (London: Penguin, 2000), p. xxv. 37 Ibid., p. 173. 38 Ibid., p. 123. Second Corinthians 3.6: to. ga.r gra,mma avpokte,nnei( to. de. pneu/ma

zw|opoiei/Å

39 Ibid., p. 66. 40 Ibid., p. 125.

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

93

The analogy with a king and his judges shows that, for Tyndale, the power of the keys is continuous with and derives from Christ’s authority and does not admit of judgements outside those already given in the law and promises of God received in Christ. His critique of the Papalist interpretation is that it seizes a power for itself beyond that which is delegated to it, for functions which are not the functions given to it. On the other hand, there is an authority given to the apostles in the form of witness.41 As witness, it is authoritative insofar as it is faithful to the source from which the authority derived. The Great Commission (Mt. 28.18-20), to which Tyndale appeals, begins with the risen Jesus proclaiming his own cosmic evxousi,a. However, it is signiﬁcant that the way in which this authority is to be exercised by his followers is in the speciﬁc tasks of mission and witness. This authority is then the basis for the making and baptizing of disciples from all nations. Furthermore, the disciple-making and baptizing is to be accompanied by an inculcation (dida,skontej) of obedience to the commands of Jesus himself. The ongoing presence of Jesus is offered as an encouragement to the disciples as they undertake these tasks under the threat of false accusation and persecution – and under outright contradiction. That the disciples of Christ will be received with abuse, contempt and denial is one of Matthew’s constant motifs. The reference to the e[wj th/j suntelei,aj tou/ aivw/noj reminds the readers of the eschatological vindication that is promised in the rest of the Gospel (see Mt. 5.11-12; 25.31-46). That is to say: the authority given to witness is eschatologically guaranteed, but witness is undertaken in the present under conditions of afﬂiction.42 But in his polemic against Papalism, does Tyndale not make the Christian the submissive and uncritical agent of the state? Is he not merely opening up the way in which others of more Erastian bent will follow? The theme of his tract is indeed obedience: to father, magistrate and king. Following Romans 13, Tyndale teaches the Christian to obey the ruler and not to resist him. Yet this is not a doting submission, nor is it an adoption of the project of the state. Tyndale freely recognizes – and knows from his own experience – that rulers can be tyrannical. As he sees it, his life’s task, for which he is ultimately martyred, is to liberate the Scriptures from captivity to both the church and

41 Tyndale frequently uses ‘witnes’ (and variations) to translate martu,rion, when modern translations use ‘testimony’, such as in Mt. 24.14: ‘And this gladtidingees of the kyngdome shalbe preached in all the worlde for a witnes vnto all nacions: and then shall the ende come.’ 42 Bruce D. Marshall makes much the same point when he writes: ‘Christians will inevitably encounter a kind of epistemic afﬂiction, because they not only hold true, but insist on treating as epistemically primary across the board, beliefs which will be rationally contestable until the end of time . . . The afﬂiction which goes with holding these beliefs may go beyond having to avoid giving them up. For the martyr’s willingness to die for her faith in Christ, a perseverance no less arduous for being wholly the Spirit’s gift, is rightly reserved the highest praise’ (Bruce D. Marshall, Trinity and Truth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 216). Marshall alights on the rationally contestable nature of the witness. Yet it is true that the challenge to the witness occurs on a much broader front – on political, existential, moral and aesthetic grounds as well.

94

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

the king by translating them, such that the Word of God will be an authority over both. For Tyndale, ‘[T]here is no power but of God.’43 Tyndale’s advice to Christian kings is to subject themselves to the authority of Scripture. The placing of the Bible into the hands of the ploughboy of course has revolutionary political implications – which is what protects him from outright Erastianism.44 The Bible is the source of knowledge of God, by the Holy Spirit. And this is a public claim, not merely a private opinion. For Tyndale, the whole Christian community is one: there is no parallel holy body called ‘the Church’ with separate authority and powers. However, by placing both king and church in their different callings as accountable to the Word of God as the highest authority, Tyndale introduces a potentially unsettling element into the equation.45 After Christendom is the situation different? Does the ascendancy of liberal order with its more diffuse arrangement of political authority (for example, that suggested by Rorty) mean that there is a more inviting prospect in view for churches as they relate to rulers? In The Desire of the Nations, Oliver O’Donovan, writing in the tradition of Augustine and Tyndale, returns to the theme of mission, in and for the world.46 Though, as he clearly shows, differing historical conditions have made different arrangements necessary because of what has been required in each age for mission, it is precisely mission that has been and remains the inescapable constant. As he writes: The church is not at liberty to withdraw from mission; nor may it undertake its mission without conﬁdent hope of success. It was the missionary imperative that compelled the church to take the conversion of the empire seriously and to seize the opportunities it offered. These were not merely opportunities for ‘power’. They were opportunities for preaching the Gospel, baptising believers, curbing the violence and cruelty of empire and, perhaps most important of all, forgiving their former persecutors.47 The dangerous temptation for Christians comes with the thought that the work of mission is somehow ﬁnished, and that co-operation with secular

43 Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, p. 41. 44 The history of Bible translation into the English language is of course marked by the recognition by kings that the Bible in the hands of the lay person was a huge danger to royal rule. For example, the publication and mass distribution of the Geneva Bible (1560) was strongly associated with the growth of the Parliamentary party in England. See my own essay: Michael P. Jensen, ‘Simply reading the Geneva Bible’, Literature and Theology, 9(1) (1995), pp. 30–45. 45 Brad S. Gregory (1999: 105–9) gives an exhaustive account of the importance of Scripture for the martyrs (Protestant, Catholic and Anabaptist) of the early modern period in Europe. 46 O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations, p. 212. After all, it was the Christian missionary impulse that gave rise to martyrdoms in the ﬁrst place: ‘martyrdom arose because the Christians’ experience of the love of God through Jesus drove them to be missionaries’ (P. F. Jensen, The Future of Jesus, p. 63). 47 O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations, p. 212.

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

95

authority means its abandonment. The mission continues, and only the return of Christ will end it. By ‘mission’ is not meant some inﬂation of ecclesial inﬂuence – though this may of course occur. Rather, the church is, for O’Donovan, ‘to be at the disposal of the Holy Spirit in making Christ’s victory known’.48 The form that this takes is not to be prescribed ahead of time but rather to be discerned in medias res. To return to our paradigmatic martyrological narrative by way of example, in the ‘certain submission’ offered to Thomas, we see perhaps an invitation to pursue a part of the mission while at the same time renouncing other parts. Thomas’s discernment (as dramatized by Eliot) is obviously that compromise is unacceptable in this circumstance. What of the authority that is given to the churches? It is not a parallel of, or a competitor to, secular authority. Like Tyndale, O’Donovan points to the authority that inheres in witness to the gospel. This is the Word of God: the Word of God no less, and, as such, a message precisely about his rule. The churches do not exercise this authority coercively, even if they can, but rather: since it is given to nobody but the risen Christ to raise the dead, the church’s authority does not rest in exercising that power by delegation, but in pointing to its future exercise in an act of testimony.49 This is the clavis potentiae: the authoritative divine Word is offered so as to persuade its hearers. As a mark of its true nature, the evangelical mission must be carried out in readiness for its utter rejection, but in hope for its ﬁnal vindication.

E

Suffering and hoping witness: the mission and the martyr

Earlier, I noted the similarity between the second temptation and Rorty’s invitation to become an ironic self. Both would be ways to avoid martyrdom for the sake of participating in government for the good of the community (and so go some way toward answering our ‘questions of selfhood’, especially those of ‘the good’ and of ‘others’). The Rortian ironist holds his ‘ﬁnal knowledge’ somewhat at arm’s length, and, with a lightness of outlook, enters into the political domain ready for peaceful citizenship. The Christian martyr appears to be just the kind of person who cannot do this. What Rorty asks the Christian disciple to do is unreasonable, even impossible: to be someone other than who she is, and to ﬁnd a language untainted by the accents of her identity in Christ. Yet it is the Christian disciple who ﬁnds her way to the kind of ‘elasticity of mind’ (to use historian Herbert Butterﬁeld’s phrase50) that Rorty hopes for in 48 Ibid., p. 214. 49 Ibid., p. 217. 50 Butterﬁeld writes: ‘In these days . . . when people are so much the prisoners of systems – especially of those general ideas which mark the spirit of the age – it is not always

96

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

his ironist.51 That is to say, on a theological account, no human political system has a claim to be more ﬁrmly rooted in ‘ﬁnal knowledge’ than any other. The gospel of Christ is a declaration of the subjection of all human rule to the divine rule – a rule which itself is expressed, quite ironically, in the suffering service of the Son of Man. To this the early martyrs in particular testiﬁed. So, human authority can be treated with due respect and with due disrespect. As a ‘ﬁnal knowledge’ (if we accept Rorty’s term), ‘Christ’ actually allows for a degree of ﬂexible, peaceable and open living in and around various political arrangements,52 but never for compromise of the ultimate.53 From my reading of Scripture, and with the help of Augustine and Tyndale in particular, we have seen that the witness to which Christians are called is not merely suffering and rejection but also a hope for resurrection from the dead, and that it is a proclamation of the universal rule of the ascended Christ. Martyrdom is not merely a sign of the world’s rejection of divine rule but also of the ﬁnal vindication of that rule. Furthermore, as Augustine could see, signs of that (for now, hidden) rule are not absent from the present evil age. The danger, as I have observed (and as Thomas himself is warned), is that the appearances of the trace elements of the divine victory might become grounds for ecclesial triumphalism. Our reading of Romans 13 (the locus classicus) has recalled the one-ness of divine power. All power and authority in heaven and on earth have been given to Christ. Even power hostile to the God of Jesus Christ – Nebuchadnezzar or Caesar – does his bidding. Therefore, it is not adequate simply to brand the king – or whatever form secular rule takes – with the beastly mark. This is to lapse into a dualism, a dualism that the gospel of Jesus eclipses. The subversive stance and the deﬁant posture are not sufﬁcient to describe a fully orbed Christian political theology – nor is it true that an absence of bloody martyrdom necessarily indicates a loss of that which is essential to Christian witness. Martyrdom is a sign precisely of the world’s rejection of divine rule, not of the church’s rejection of worldly rule. Yet neither is it possible for churches to accept, as they recognize the governing authority, a truncated version of their own mission – a mission for which they have also been divinely authorized. They cannot accept peace terms that

realized that belief in God gives us great elasticity of mind, rescuing us from too great subservience to intermediate principles, whether these are related to nationality or ideology or science. It even enables us to leave more play in our minds for the things that nature or history may still have to reveal to us in the near future’ (Herbert Butterﬁeld, Christianity and History (London: Collins/Fontana, 1957), p. 145). 51 It is not too much to suspect that Rorty himself has smuggled a hidden ‘ﬁnal knowledge’ into his schema. Does not his pragmatism imply a prior decision about that which is decidable and that which is worth deciding – a prior decision which turns out to be ultimate? Does he not rule out of court that of which he is personally most sceptical and that of which others might deﬁnitely not be? By what, or whose, standard? In the end, is he ironic enough? 52 The many failures of Christians to live according to the ﬂexibility that Christ provides must, alas, be conceded to Rorty. 53 I shall pick up this theme again in Chapter 5 with reference to Bonhoeffer’s discussion of ‘ultimate’ and ‘penultimate’.

THE SECOND TEMPTATION

97

demand that they speak and act only as Sauls and not as Pauls – though there might indeed be some conceivable and tangible advantage in doing so. Bloody martyrdom – those moments that are remembered by Christians and that possibility for which the disciple of Christ prepares – is a sign that the Christian is a self subject to another authority, and answers ultimately to that highest of thrones: peiqarcei/n dei/ qew/| ma/llon h’ avnqrw,poij (Acts 5.29).

This page intentionally left blank

5

The third temptation: the temptation to idealism and martyrdom as passive action

A

Introduction

I have argued that the path of Christian discipleship as framed by martyrdom leads away from the promise of earthly safety and practicality; and also that it reveals the inadequacy for Christian identity of a submissive collaboration with those who rule. If such a submissive collaboration is untenable, is there then a licence to critique governments (and again to collaborate, this time with other critics) to such an extent that the Christian disciple might work for their subversion? Is this possible in the name of some national or cultural identity, or even in the name of some ideal or principle? This question of political citizenship is, however, revealing of a more fundamental question about the martyr as an actor: what is the nature of action as it relates to the self-identity of the martyr, who appears to forgo action? In response, I shall argue that the template of martyrdom shows Christian identity to be understood in terms of suffering, or ‘passive’ action; and that the Christian is marked by an attitude of ‘loyal resistance’ to political authority. We shall see that in comparison with (as an example) Roger Scruton’s conservative vision of a national identity and tradition, which makes direct appeal to Christianity as a prop for its self-mythologization, martyrdom shows the path, not to some ideal, but (in this case) to a true but self-critical patriotism.

B

The third temptation

i. Deﬁance of the crown Power is the interest of the third of Thomas’s Tempters, as it was of the second. However, rather than urging him to make a pact with the King, this one invites him to make an allegiance between church authority and a baronial 99

100

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

group against the crown: I am no triﬂer, and no politician. To idle or intrigue at court I have no skill. I am no courtier. I know a horse, a dog, a wench; I know how to hold my estates in order, A country-keeping lord who minds his own business. It is we country lords who know the country And we who know what the country needs. It is our country. We care for the country. We are the backbone of the nation. We, not the plotting parasites About the King. (I.398-409) Already the Chorus and the Three Priests have complained of the unsettling effect of baronial interests in the governing of England (I.22; I.61). This Tempter couches his appeal to the Archbishop in populist terms: he is ‘no politician’ (I.399), a man of the land with simple, rough tastes and, he claims, bluntness of speech. He is not a man for intrigue (he says). He is, rather, a ‘country-keeping lord who minds his own business’ (I.402). But this is the ground for his appeal to patriotism: he and others like him ‘know what the country needs’ (I.405) as the ‘backbone of the nation’ (I.407). As the man on the land he claims to know and represent the country far more effectively than the royalist party (‘the plotting parasites’ (I.408)) of the Second Tempter. This party claims for itself a deeper ownership of the national identity by dint of its proximity to ‘the country’ (the word ‘country’ appears six times in his short speech). Contact with the actual soil of a nation bestows a greater right to name its essence; and it claims to be motivated by a deeper love of the country than the current royal alternative.1 To claim to be the ‘backbone of the nation’ also suggests that in economic terms the nation leans heavily on the agricultural sector that this Tempter represents. Here the Tempter seems to claim not only a deeper connection to the nation’s soul but also a ﬁrmer grasp of its essential power-base, on the land. The royal court is only a façade of power, not the real thing. In fact, the royal group, with its insatiable need for taxation, is parasitic on the productivity of the baronial farmers. But the Tempter wants Thomas (and the audience) to see him as a private man, busy with home and estates, forced by the needs of circumstance and threat to his ideal to come forward into the public, political sphere and to take action. The Tempter’s reticence ennobles his action. There is a stability and security about his claim which is attractive in contrast to the changeable political climate.

1 This is Brutus’s explanation of his assassination of Caesar – at least as Shakespeare has it: ‘not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more . . .’ (William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (New York: Courier Dove, 1991), II.iii.12–21, p. 45). Brutus is not a revolutionary, of course; he sees himself as a defender of the true identity of Rome.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

101

ii. Friendship The second speech the Tempter makes, however, shows that there is shrewdness behind his plain speech:

Purpose is plain. Endurance of friendship does not depend Upon ourselves, but upon circumstance. But circumstance is not undetermined. Unreal friendship may turn to real But real friendship, once ended, cannot be mended. Sooner shall enmity turn to alliance. The enmity that never knew friendship Can sooner know accord. (I.411-19) Thomas’s friendship with, and loyalty to, the King is the chief obstacle in the Tempter’s way and it is to this that his appeal is directed:2 Endurance of friendship does not depend Upon ourselves, but upon circumstance. (I.412-13) That is to say, the shifting contingencies of the times make demands that outﬂank the human will to maintain loyalty to one’s friends. Times change, and friendship is not immutable. In fact, reconciliation of former friends is less likely than the coming together of former enemies: ‘real friendship, once ended, cannot be mended’ (I.416). This directly contrasts with the First Tempter’s earlier appeal to the transcendent absoluteness of friendship. The Tempter’s scepticism resembles the words in the play that we hear about providence (the language of ‘the wheel’), but inexactly enough to show a difference: ‘circumstance is not undetermined’ (I.414); ‘we expect the rise of a new constellation’, he later says (I.452). The litotes ‘not undetermined’ is revealing in what it conceals: the Tempter does not suggest who or what is the determiner of the times, only that it is the business of human beings to be abreast of the times. Reconciliation with the King is an utter impossibility for Thomas – the sooner he deals with this new reality, the better for him and for England. A long-ended personal friendship is trumped by circumstance and the necessity of public action in service of the ideal. iii. Time As we have seen, Thomas’s temptation to deny the reality of his personal bond to the King is bound up with an invitation to see time in a particular way. In his appeal to ‘circumstance’, the Tempter makes no grand claim for destiny or mastery of the times. After all, that would be impossible for any human subject. He merely suggests that it is possible to sail with the tide of history while at least that tide appears to be favourable. If not, then so be it. This is the best that human beings can do without certainty about the future. What 2 Of course, consideration of friendship – and so the self in relation to other selves – brings us into the range of our original terms of discussion of the self.

102

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

matters is Now; in fact, it is more reasonable given the lack of human access to transcendence to focus on the world as it confronts us and as we experience it. The present has its urgent demands that justly deserve consideration. There is humility in being attentive and responsive to the moment and in not pretending to have this more-than-human perspective on events. iv. England The bald language of the Tempter’s speech in I.425-36 is a return to his patriotic tones:

Other friends May be found in the present situation. King in England is not all-powerful; King is in France, squabbling in Anjou; Round him waiting hungry sons. We are for England. We are in England . . . (I.425-30) The present situation is the time for ‘other friends’. The Tempter invokes race, also: the Norman heritage that he and Thomas share contrasts with King Henry’s Angevin blood, and ‘England is a land for Norman / [S]overeignty’ (I.432). ‘We are the people’, he claims (I.435): the metonymy is a claim to a kind of representation over and against that of the King. His claim to represent the people, to even be ‘the people’, consists perhaps in his proximity to them and to their needs. What is the King’s mandate, on the other hand? For its part, ‘England’ represents (for the Tempter) an entity or a notion that is somehow prior to or more basic than the King’s rule of it; and so the name of the nation is invoked as that by which an insurrection may be justiﬁed. ‘England’ is something transcendent – an ideal. v. Action The Tempter’s ﬂattering invitation to Thomas, then, is to join a ‘happy coalition / [O]f intelligent interests’ (I.437-8). In the ‘ﬁght for liberty’ (I.444), as he puts it, the sponsorship of the Church would be undoubtedly an advantage:

You, my Lord, In being with us, would ﬁght a good stroke At once, for England and for Rome, Ending the tyrannous jurisdiction Of king’s court over bishop’s court, Of king’s court over baron’s court. (I.444-9) The entry of the ecclesiastical power into the political fray on the side of baronial interests would surely free the Church too: it would remove the interference of the King from the Church’s business, a perennial – and eventually tumultuous – problem in English history. Thomas is called, in other words, to exercise the power of the Church in the secular sphere: to embrace action. This type of alliance would naturally involve an exchange of beneﬁts; and so it is to be a friendship based not on common affection, but on utility. The

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

103

Tempter-baron wisely realizes that mere force is not sufﬁcient to accomplish what is needed; authority and power need the conceptual, ideological energy that the Church can provide. The beneﬁts of this entry into the political sphere are tangible; and the audience must recognize that the Tempter has a good case. The proto-martyr has a real alternative, a real choice. The King has proven untrustworthy, and here is the possibility of a tidy power-sharing arrangement. The church can in this temptation (apparently) remain the church and be itself but do so in coalition with earthly powers in a revolution. Think what good could be achieved by this mighty conjoining of the two! Think what new possibilities emerge from this willing coalition of the ‘temporal’ and the ‘spiritual’! It is certainly not difﬁcult to imagine a more just and peaceful nation emerging from this plan. The temptation is real enough; even Thomas does not defend the King’s character in reply. In sum: the Tempter offers Thomas a vision of himself as a self in the full exercise of practical wisdom, responsive to circumstance and with his virtues realized in action for the good of the political community of which he is part. He offers him a share of power in the name of patriotism and of the people. He invites Thomas to take action in the light of changed political circumstances, and to use the ecclesiastical and spiritual power at his disposal for earthly ends. Thomas’s situation is representative of a temptation before Christians in all kinds of difﬁcult political circumstances. The Christian subject may want to respond to tyranny with direct political action because it seems the reasonable and just alternative, and to make common cause with those who are likewise persuaded.

C

Roger Scruton, T. S. Eliot and patriotic tradition

It would be a mistake to think of this temptation as a temptation to radical political action per se. Action is in view, for certain; but in this instance it is in the name of a patriotic ideal. This kind of political and social vision has its roots in Roman thought, but ﬂowers in England with Burkean conservatism. One of its most articulate contemporary exponents is Roger Scruton, whose The Meaning of Conservatism was ﬁrst published in 1980.3 For Scruton, the sheer voluntarism of social contractarian liberalism is a denial of what really is the basis for the bond of the citizen to society. The family itself is a naturally occurring unit in which authority is to be found without it needing to be imposed from outside. Likewise, society is not a voluntary association of free individuals who may withdraw at any time: it is ‘naturally’ occurring, having its origins beyond human choosing. Authority appears within it, rather than needing to be imposed or arranged from outside. Power is always already there in these ‘natural’ afﬁliations, by means of a ‘transcendent bond’ which exists outside the realm of individual choices.4 The justiﬁcations for power and authority given by liberals are artiﬁcial by comparison. 3 Roger Scruton, The Meaning of Conservatism (London: Macmillan, 2nd edn, 1984). 4 This is precisely the kind of category that Rorty eschews (see Chapter 4).

104

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

This ‘transcendent bond’ gives rise to an appropriately healthy love for one’s country. The nation or state that is functioning well must command the allegiance of its subjects. As Scruton writes, ‘[P]atriotism of some kind – the individual’s sense of his identity with a social order – is politically indispensable.’5 Scruton defends patriotism as a condition of private life ﬁrst and foremost, inﬂuencing the deliberations of the individual citizen. Whereas for a liberal like Rorty allegiance to society is a means to ensure individual freedom, the patriotism that Scruton advocates posits allegiance as an end in itself. The head of state and the ceremonies that attend statehood are symbols of identity and attachment to the nation; they are intended as expressions of its particular character. Thus, the social order depends on a commonly held (though not necessarily consciously held) vision of the identity of that order (and of the individual within that order): ‘[T]o engage in political activity is to understand, and in varying degrees to share, the common way of seeing things. This may require an act of imaginative identiﬁcation; but it does not involve . . . the application of any neutral science of man.’6 The ‘neutral science of man’ is, for Scruton, a liberal dead end:7 There is, to put it bluntly, something deeply self-deceived in the idea of a fulﬁlled human being whose style of life is entirely of his own devising; The cult of ‘authenticity’ – emphasising the truth that the individual self is in some sense an artifact – espouses the self-contradictory position that it is by himself that he is made. This myth of self as causa sui is one to which few people now subscribe . . . I shall argue that, once we have rejected the cult of ‘authenticity’ . . . we shall be forced to abandon the attempt to erode whatever is ‘established’, whatever has a vested power to overcome opposition, which is the ﬁrst principle of liberal as of socialist thought.8 This is reminiscent of Charles Taylor’s concern that a notion of self-authenticating freedom ultimately collapses under its own weight (though more hostile to ‘authenticity’ as a concept, of course). If the self is not to be found and deﬁned on its own terms, then for Scruton it is necessary that some reference be made to the existing social context within which the individual is to be found. If that established context – the tradition – is being suppressed, then the individual is not given a matrix within which to be an identiﬁable individual. Human identity can only be established in reference to those ‘transcendent bonds’ that already exist. 5 Scruton, The Meaning of Conservatism, p. 35. 6 Ibid., p. 37. Scruton is, of course, a conﬁrmed monarchist, and the Third Tempter is actually suggesting a revolt against the monarch. This would apparently make Scruton an unlikely representative of the Third Tempter’s corner. However, there is no suggestion that the institution of monarchy is under threat here. There are many examples in the history of England of revolts against the monarch in the name of monarchy, and which thus were the actions of conservatives (quite apart from those movements that suggested its overthrow in the interests of the national identity). 7 Even if, like Rorty, one wants to deny that there is such a thing as a self, one still will feel the need to say so. 8 Scruton, The Meaning of Conservatism, p. 38.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

105

For the conservative, tradition is of course a concept that has a particular force. Tradition has the power ‘to make history into reason’9 to bring the past into the present with a commanding presence. Traditions have power wherever the individual seeks to ‘relate himself to something transcendent’10 – in other words, where individual people identify themselves according to things external to themselves, whether institutions or ideas. Tradition is not merely the dead hand of history weighing heavy on the shoulder of the present: tradition, as Scruton shows, is a dynamic force in the present, requiring the labour of re-creation and reappropriation in each successive generation. But it reminds us that we do not begin with a blank slate each time; and it allows for the development of a durable chain of customs and social practices – those things that are component parts in a national identity. In support of tradition, Scruton is in favour of the establishment of the Church – in this case, of course, the Church of England. From a social and political point of view he sees great beneﬁt in church-establishment for the country as a cohesive and visionary institution. The existence of a prominent established religion helps to maintain the social bond, he argues. This only functions well insofar as the Church ‘attends to the consoling myths which have drawn people to it’. As the Church becomes ‘a sanctimonious addendum’11 to progressive social causes, then its authority is lost. That is, it must be true to its own mission and identity – alien though it may seem – if it is to maintain its position at the heart of the nation’s political authority. Society needs the Church, he argues, in order to bring order and sense to the great passing moments of birth, marriage and death. Secularization brings only confusion, ‘a thousand irrelevant creeds’. Established religion also serves to protect the nation from the violence of fanaticism. Society, then, needs the Church to perform a function that society is unable to perform on its own.12 Scruton frequently references T. S. Eliot’s social, cultural and literary criticism in support of his own vision. Eliot made a concerted effort to wrestle with the idea of tradition in his seminal essay ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’: The emotion of art is impersonal. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done. And he is not likely to know what is to be done unless he lives in what is not merely the present, but the present moment of the past, unless he is conscious, not of what is dead, but of what is already living.13 9 10 11 12

Ibid., p. 40. Ibid. Ibid., p. 173. In a more recent book, Scruton has argued that culture is rooted in religion, and that the ‘high’ culture of the West is the fruit of that culture’s contact with Christianity. Despite what modernity critics might say, the canon of Western culture is already a tolerant and diverse and self-critical canon – and is so because of Christianity. The decline of a culture’s generating religion can only mean the debasement of that culture. Thus, Western culture needs Christianity and its values in order to save it from its own barbarism. (Roger Scruton, Modern Culture (London: Continuum, 2nd edn, 2005).) 13 T. S. Eliot, ‘Tradition and the individual talent’, Perspecta, 19 (1982), p. 42.

106

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Eliot’s enemy is the Romantic view of poetry as self-expression: as the expression of a particular personality, or of some kind of poetic originality. Eliot the modernist says exactly the opposite: that truly great art is interested in dissolving personalities and in immersion in the tradition. The poet must engage in an act of self-immolation before the tradition and the work – the tradition, not just as the voice of the past in the past, but as the ‘present moment of the past’. He must offer himself to the voice of the tradition and lose his own; but then, he will ﬁnd he has his own back anew. This is a kind of a ‘martyrdom of the poet’; or, at least, a self-sacriﬁce of the poet to the greater voice of the tradition: What happens is a continual surrender of himself as he is at the moment to something which is more valuable. The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacriﬁce, a continual extinction of personality.14

This very inﬂuential essay was written in 1919, well before Eliot’s conversion to Christianity. However, his aesthetic and literary traditionalism were entirely in keeping with his religious and social traditionalism as he expressed them more than a decade later. Critic Donald Davie wrote of Eliot: . . . when it came to deciding what Christian sect he should join, it was of the utmost importance to him that he choose what should seem to be not a sect at all but a national norm, its normality shown in that it was backed by the secular and institutional forces of the nation-state.15 Anglican Christianity seemed to Eliot of a piece with the English way of life, its history and its tradition. Scruton adds: For Eliot conversion was a gesture of belonging, an imaginative homecoming whereby he united himself with an historical common culture. This culture was, for Eliot, at once local and placeless, present and timeless, the possession of a community sanctiﬁed by history, and transcending history through prayer.16 In his The Idea of a Christian Society,17 Eliot described the necessity for society to have religious institutions for its beneﬁt and even for its survival. Christianity, in the form of an established church, meshes well with the traditions of Englishness. It implies a life in conformity with nature – not in a pagan sense, but in that it aids and abets family and social and national life as they spring, as it were, from the soil. Eliot is aware of the dangers of a national Christianity having no regard for Universal Christianity, and of the simple Erastian identiﬁcation of Christianity with the élites. Yet, without an embrace 14 15 16 17

Ibid., p. 39. Davie, ‘Anglican Eliot’, p. 186. Scruton, Modern Culture, p. 82. T. S. Eliot, The Idea of a Christian Society (London: Faber, 1939).

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

107

of its own religious identity, English culture risks falling prey to the creeping banality of the technological-industrial-commercial forms of modernity. Secular liberalism has proven impotent in the face of these forces.18 We discover then in Eliot’s social and literary criticism something close to this third temptation that he himself poses to Thomas. The same is true in Scruton’s philosophical writings: to regard Christianity as a ‘natural’ and even necessary complement of the national and cultural psyche. English patriotism needs Christianity; it withers without it. What would England itself be without its churches and its Church? In which case, the Church can rightly see itself a repository of national values, a chaplain of social cohesion and a curator of the national identity; and the Christian can identify as a patriot.

D

The martyr, patriotism and action

i. Preliminaries Our reply to this temptation draws us into discussion of some themes that are already familiar from the three ‘selfhood questions’, to do with narrative, the good and others. First Peter in particular posits the Christian as one who, because of her self-identity, is ‘loyally resistant’ – whereby the allegiance of the Christian subject to the supremacy of God’s rule both relativizes human ideals and recognizes them as having value and signiﬁcance. The martyr’s ethnic identity has no priority in the Christian self-identity, but is not dissolved either. Time is once again a consideration, as that which for the Christian has a dual signiﬁcance without lapsing into dualism, and which calls the self to a response of patient endurance. Further, the martyr is an exponent of the friendship, exempliﬁed by Christ himself, which encompasses even enmity and results in self-sacriﬁce. Finally, I shall relate the martyr’s identity to passive action, which is the way I have here chosen to characterize the martyr’s disavowal of the assertion and deﬁnition of the self through action, and his offering of the self to a divine identiﬁcation. ii. Loyal resistance As we have seen, the martyr witnesses to the rule of God in human affairs, but also to the divine ordering of human governments. He sees himself as a citizen of the heavenly kingdom with only a secondary allegiance to the delegated authority subsisting in earthly rulers.19 In reply to the Tempter, Thomas begins by pointing out his treachery:

If the Archbishop cannot trust the Throne, He has good cause to trust none but God alone. (I.457-8) Though the monarch may be a tyrant and the limitations of monarchy as a system of power thereby exposed, none of the other possible political systems or parties are any more trustworthy; there is no type of human political system 18 Hence, his social critique in ‘Choruses from “The Rock”’. 19 See Chapter 4.

108

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

or party to which a Christian may give absolute trust. No system or party or individual ruler can be conceived as an absolute and universal good, because this idealizing, seen from a theological perspective, is beastly (in the sense of John’s Apocalypse). Yet this critique of power does not take the form of a post-Foucault power-critique: that is, one suspicious of power and its effects per se. The complaint is rather about systems and practices of power that usurp the place of the divine power – and so illegitimately claim an entitlement to worship. More particularly, the determination of the barons to undermine Henry reveals their untrustworthiness and viciousness. Their exercise of ‘practical reasoning’ is not as innocent as it looks. Can Thomas now really join with them as ‘a wolf among wolves’ (I.464)? Rather, Jesus sends his disciples out (as we saw in Chapter 4) ‘like sheep into the midst of wolves’ (Mt. 10.16); Thomas, having rejected the possibility of returning to the King’s side, now rejects what seems like the only alternative, which is to join with those who would depose him. He does not defend the King: the King’s behaviour is irrelevant and the accusation against him – fair though it is – beside the point. The martyr resists by suffering rather than by acting (in the sense that the Tempter invites). It is a path of loyal resistance, made possible only because the martyr acknowledges a higher King and a higher court. In this way, the martyr is without doubt political – though not in a way that the Tempter would recognize. The martyr witnesses above all to the power and trustworthiness of God. He does not court open rebellion against the ruling authority, or seek to engineer regime-change in the idealistic hope that the alternative government will be any better (though conceivably it might be).20 The early Christians insisted that they were the Emperor’s loyal subjects. Tertullian wrote to Scapulus in this vein: So, too, treason is falsely laid to our charge, though no one has ever been able to ﬁnd followers of Albinus, or Niger, or Cassius, among Christians; while the very men who had sworn by the genii of the emperors, who had offered and vowed sacriﬁces for their safety, who had often pronounced condemnation on Christ’s disciples, are till this day found traitors to the imperial throne. A Christian is enemy to none, least of all to the Emperor of Rome, whom he knows to be appointed by his God, and so cannot but love and honour; and whose well-being moreover, he must needs desire, with that of the empire over which he reigns so long as the world shall stand – for so long as that shall Rome continue.21

20 Bonhoeffer’s example is, of course, contentious in this regard. Does he warrant the designation ‘martyr’ given that he engaged in a plot for tyrannicide? Craig A. Slane (2004) makes a stout defence of Bonhoeffer as martyr, citing not Bonhoeffer’s innocence, but his refusal to seek justiﬁcation for his actions as sufﬁcient at this point. Whatever the case, Slane admits that Bonhoeffer’s case breaks to some degree with the classic pattern of martyrdom established in the Acta. 21 Tertullian, ‘To Scapula’, II.1, in Tertullian, The Writings of Quintus Sept. Flor. Tertullianus (trans. Sydney Thelwall, Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis; Ante-Nicene Christian Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869), p. 47.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

109

The hypocritical disloyalty of the pagans is contrasted with the faithfulness of the Christians, who are, however, put to death on account of their unwillingness to perform idolatrous sacriﬁces. But swearing by the divinity of the imperium and making sacriﬁces are not at all an effective test of loyalty for them. They are false demonstrations. By contrast, the Christian (asserts Tertullian) is no traitor. For the template for the martyr’s loyal resistance I shall turn to two incidents from the life of Christ. In both cases, Jesus is offered a choice to undermine the status quo. In neither case does he pursue this course; but at the same time he does not become an advocate for the regime. The ﬁrst is the moment after the feeding of the ﬁve thousand as John portrays it (John 6), almost as an aside, when the people are about to seize Jesus and make him king (a`rpa,zein auvto.n i[na poih,swsin basile,a), ‘by force’, as the English translations put it. It was perhaps a reasonable conclusion to draw from this gathering of a mob in the desert that a military uprising was in the ofﬁng – John does refer to the crowd of people as oi` a;ndrej – ‘men’, perhaps implying potential soldiers.22 There is evidently a groundswell of popular support for Jesus; an opportunity appears to challenge the current rule of Judea. The sign of Jesus’s provision of the men with food is a temptation to them to imagine that power is theirs for the seizing. And yet, Jesus at this moment isolates himself. He refuses this way forward: it is not his modus operandi. As he says in his trial before Pontius Pilate, his kingdom (basilei,a) is not of this world (Jn 18.36) – it is not seized by the mob even from the tyrant’s hands. The second incident is the question about taxes and Caesar, recorded in the synoptic gospels (Mt. 22.16-21; Mk 12.13-17; Lk. 20:21-25). The question appears intended to expose Jesus as either a zealot or a patsy of the Romans – either alternative is problematic. It is given to avgreu,swsin lo,gw| (Mk 12.13), to ‘trap him in his words’. Jesus’s answer is not just a witty evasion. The coin bears Caesar’s likeness (eivkw.n) and is owed to him. The verb avpo,dote, frequently translated ‘render’, suggests a paying of something which is owed.23 This can be heard without any irony at all as an afﬁrmation of the duty to pay taxes to the Roman authorities. The likeness of God, however, is stamped on every human being. The paralleling of the two says it all: God’s call on the human person is far deeper-reaching and more fundamental than Caesar’s call on the small metal token. Immediately, the limits of Caesar’s power are exposed along with the hypocrisy of the questioners. The martyrs of the early church were depicted as performing this text to the point of death. The Carthaginian Christian martyr Donata, under interrogation as to whether she would swear by Caesar’s divine spirit, replied only that she would ‘honour Caesar as Caesar, but it is God we fear’.24 To Caesar

22 ‘. . . the speciﬁcation of ﬁve thousand men is a way of drawing attention to a potential guerrilla force of eager recruits willing and able to serve the right leader’ (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Leicester: Apollos, 1991), p. 270). 23 It has the same meaning in Rom. 13.7. 24 ‘Honorem Caesari quasi Caesari; timorem autem Deo’, in ‘The acts of the Scillitan martyrs’, IX, (Musurillo, 2000: 89).

110

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

something is owed, but not the ultimate giving of the self in worship. That is only the due of God, to him only rendered. W. H. C. Frend observes: The Church had become a great popular movement. But though refusing to admit that the State had an absolute claim on their loyalties, the Christians had become deeply involved in its destinies.25 (Many) Christians were exemplary citizens, in fact. Ironically, the witnessing church became closely bound to the fate of the Empire that had persecuted it. Eliot shows that Thomas’s understanding of himself as a loyally resistant subject of the King is another performance of the example of the Christ of the NT.26 It is an expression of the attitude enjoined on the paroi,kouj kai. parepidh,mouj (‘aliens and exiles’) who are the intended recipients of the letter called 1 Peter (2.11). In this epistle a persecuted people is addressed; at least, they are suffering ‘for a little while’ (ovli,gon a;rti (1 Pet. 1.6; see also 5.10)).27 That their time of trial is a temporary sojourn in the wilderness is further indicated in 1 Pet. 1.17 (to.n th/j paroiki,aj u`mw/n cro,non). This reference to a temporary period of time is crucial: it means that the hope that the recipients have can ﬂower into obedience and endurance as they wait. The counterbalance of the present trials/sufferings is the glory and honour to come. This is an explicitly Christological account of time: their experience in this age, like the brief few days of Jesus’s defeat in the tomb, will pass into the glorious new era, just as he was raised from the dead. Like him – indeed through him – they have been ‘born anew . . . of imperishable seed’ (1 Pet. 1.23). The translation in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of 1 Pet. 1.13 – Dio. avnazwsa,menoi ta.j ovsfu,aj th/j dianoi,aj – as ‘[T]herefore prepare your minds for action’ in my view strikes entirely the wrong exegetical and theological note by foreclosing the meaning of the phrase in terms of action. Literally, the verse reads ‘[T]herefore gird up the loins of your mind.’28 The girding of the loins signiﬁes preparedness, but the reference to the mind suggests that something other than action is what the person is to be prepared for. What the rest of the verse (and indeed the rest of the epistle) commands is, rather, a posture of patient and hopeful waiting for the ﬁnal revelation of their salvation. Whatever actions are commanded in the letter as such, they are ordered to this more passive stance. They are invited to a passive action (a theme on which I shall reﬂect further below): submitting, accepting, enduring, waiting, answering. The particular theme of holiness in the letter points towards a disciplined, puriﬁcatory activity in the same preparatory key (see 1 Pet. 1.13-21). The sufferings that they are undergoing are thus of a piece with their identity as followers of Christ. In fact, they are sharing in Christ’s very sufferings (1 Pet. 4.12-13). Like him they are still to to.n basile,a tima/te 25 Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, p. 571. 26 For example, Thomas’s speech before his murderers in II.368–70: ‘I am a priest, / [A] Christian, saved by the blood of Christ, / [R]eady to suffer with my blood.’ 27 See Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, XXXIX, p. 70. 28 J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), p. 50.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

111

(‘honour the emperor’ (1 Pet. 2.17)), amidst suffering – the sentiment to which the martyr-bishop Polycarp is said to have alluded under interrogation.29 Honouring of the emperor is a command directly juxtaposed to commands to th.n avdelfo,thta avgapa/te( to.n qeo.n fobei/sqe (‘love the brotherhood, fear God’). It is not sorted from these commands as if it is of a different kind. They are, ‘for the Lord’s sake’, to accept the authority of ‘every human institution’ (pa,sh| avnqrwpi,nh| kti,sei (1 Pet. 2.13)) – emperors, governors, slave-masters and husbands. In this last mentioned phrase – pa,sh| avnqrwpi,nh| kti,sei – is a subtle but important distinction. The ordering of these ofﬁces or structures is something done with divine authorization, but as the product of human activities of social and political ordering. These things are instituted by humans, but recognized, permitted and even authorized divinely. The submission of the reader is to institutions created by human beings, but dia. to.n ku,rion – ‘for the sake of the Lord’. That is, the submission to rulers by those who are members of the chosen people (1 Pet. 2.9) means that others may recognize the true authority of God in the resurrected Jesus Christ. So, something less than a divine anointing, or right, is given to human institutions here – it is not a particular institution or person that is given the right to rule. It is a divine recognition and permission of the fact of a contingent human authority, rather than an ideal of nationhood. This is a good deal less, note, than Scruton claims for existing orders as ‘naturally occurring’. Like Daniel (a book with a similarly exilic theme), 1 Peter does not make explicit mention of martyrdom per se, if we mean by that ‘a witnessing death’. It is clear, however, that the suffering (pa,scw) that the author has in view in particular is of the same genus as the martyr’s death: it is unjust suffering, and it is suffering with a dramatic and communicative purpose – to turn the persecutor. For example, the conduct of the wife is seen as winning over the unbelieving husband (1 Pet. 3.1) ‘without a word’. In 1 Pet. 3.16, the suffering for doing the right shames the abuser. The avpologi,a of 1 Pet. 3.15 evokes a situation of legal defence30 – similar to martu,rion. In other words, the suffering of the believer has a particular signiﬁcance; it is borne that a meaning might be conveyed. Not that this is straightforward: it is ironic, for the suffering subjection of the believer – the one who willingly suffers for doing good – actually expresses his or her own vindication. In the Acta Martyrum we ﬁnd the conﬂict of the believer with the governing power dramatized. ‘The Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons’ is one of the more detailed examples (of what are often very spare accounts). The persecution that the Christians in this narrative suffered at the hands of the governors is depicted as a military conﬂict against ‘the Adversary’ himself.31 They are seen as competing in a contest in the arena as tou.j gennai,ouj avqlhta,j (‘noble athletes’);32 Blandina is called avgwni,stria (‘combatant’ 29 ‘The martyrdom of S. Polycarp’, X, in Musurillo (2000: 11). 30 Michaels, 1 Peter, p. 188. 31 o` avntikei,menoj ‘The letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne’, I.5, in Musurillo (2000: 63). 32 Ibid., I.36, p. 72.

112

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

or ‘contestant’).33 In contrast to the tribunal and the governor who do not maintain even their own standards of justice, the martyrs are depicted as innocent of all accusations against them. A curious feature of the narrative – one that it shares with ‘The Martyrdom of Polycarp’ – is that the deaths of Lyonese martyrs confound the plans of their persecutors. So, Sanctus, who insisted that ‘I am a Christian’ would be his answer to every question hurled at him (it is reported), miraculously recovered after an excruciating session of torture – much to the amazement of his captors, who had hoped on a second visit to capitalize on the tenderness of his wounds. Indeed, ‘the second torture became to him through the grace of Christ not a torment but a cure’.34 The patience of the martyrs even made their torturers weary.35 The martyrs were not rescued as Daniel and his friends were: they were eventually killed. But this odd twist in the narratives shows control slipping out of the hands of earthly governors, and is for the narrator a sign of their ultimate vindication, and thus of the success of their resistance. The witness of the martyr is as a self subject ultimately to the Lord of heaven, but who, in being subject, recognizes the divine legitimation of earthly rule. We have seen that, if on the one hand the Christian cannot surrender her identity as such if that is the price of participation in power (Chapter 4), then neither on the other can she endorse subversion on the same terms (Chapter 5). For the martyr to renounce the path of subversive action is not, however, a sequestering of himself from the political, or a failure to see the inadequacy of the current regime. Martyrdom is an ‘act’ of resistance, in that it witnesses to the non-eternal, non-total, mortal grip of the king’s hand on the reins of power, and to the rule of a higher King; but it testiﬁes loyally in that it recognizes God’s authorization of human government. Martyrdom is in this way an ironic gesture, signifying what at ﬁrst it does not seem to signify. As it does so, it exposes the self to the possibility of suffering. In this way it echoes ‘in a smaller ﬁgure’36 the passion of Christ. iii. Time The Tempter appeals to Thomas on the grounds that time – ‘circumstance’ – has moved on. It is not so much a matter of chronos as kairos: that is, a new age has dawned and with it a new political reality. It is Thomas’s duty, in the manner of an Aristotelian agent, only to respond with skill to the times (echoing the ﬁrst temptation; see Chapter 3). Thomas’s alternative way of speaking about ‘the wheel’ – ‘that the wheel may turn and still / [B]e forever still’ (I.217-8) – is not the voice of fatalism, but of trusting to the providence of God. In the Chorus’s opening dirge this view of time is given as the backdrop: ‘[D]estiny waits in the hand of God, not in the hands of statesmen’ (I.44). What Thomas rejects is the joining of his hand to those ‘hands of statesmen’ who would attempt to turn the wheel for themselves. Seizing on the times is

33 34 35 36

Ibid., I.18, p. 66. Ibid., I.22–24, p. 68. Ibid., I.18, p. 66. The phrase comes from Thomas’s sermon in between the two acts of Murder in the Cathedral.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

113

not his path. Nor is it valid for him to attempt to diagnose the meaning of the times as different from that of the times that went before – to spiritualize it in a Hegelian fashion perhaps, or to order it according to some Joachimite schema – and to act along with this diagnosis.37 Thomas says in fact that he takes his decision ‘out of time’ (I.340). It is, in other words, an eschatological decision: while it is open to question and scrutiny as to his motives and to the relative impact of the act in time, what really matters is whether his act stands (or falls) in eternity. I have already noted the twofold nature of time in 1 Peter. This duality of time is one of the great themes of the book of Revelation, which both starts and ends with a declaration that o` kairo.j evggu,j (Rev. 1.3; 22.10). The book of Daniel was John of Patmos’s tutor in this regard. It is a great mistake to see the book as a piece of fantastic futurism; rather, it reveals the signiﬁcance of the present, as it opens up into ‘what is yet to come’.38 The meaning of the times is not discovered from within the events of history themselves, but given to John as a vision from heaven: ‘revealed’ or ‘uncovered’. It is, after all, an VApoka,luyij (Rev. 1.1). The Christ of John’s vision is the Lion/Lamb, the slain lamb who is now seated on the golden throne receiving the worship of the living creatures and the elders in their entire array. The Lamb bears the marks of his rejection by the world; yet he has overcome and is now ruling (present continuous). That is to say, the suffering of the Lamb and his followers is not denied, but rather absorbed by the divine shaping of history – it is incorporated into the great narrative of God’s defeat of evil and gloriﬁcation of himself. The great whore has made herself drunk on the blood of the martyrs (Rev. 17.6); but they will be avenged (Rev. 19.2). The beasts are viscerally horrible (a daring depiction of imperial power); but they are on a short leash. What are the readers to do? ‘[T]his calls for patient endurance’ (u`pomonh/j (Rev. 13.10)).39 As has been suggested by our discussion of 1 Peter, and now the Apocalypse, this view of time affects how Thomas must see rule. Rule is not a matter of circumstance or of humanly determined act alone, nor even of tradition. It is a matter of divine gift – and may be a matter of the removal of that gift by the giver. It falls within the power of God himself. For Israel in the book of Deuteronomy this was the case: their possession of the land was not a matter of luck, nor was it a decision of their will-to-power (see, for example, Deut. 7.12ff); and it was held conditional on their obedience to Yhwh. The point is this: Thomas’s eschatological view of time enables him to see the true signiﬁcance of the offer of the Third Tempter and to relativize it. He can easily see that the appearance of an ontological bond with the nation to which this 37 Abram and Sarai’s mistake with the concubine Hagar is a paradigmatic example of an attempt to pre-empt the promise of God. The birth of Ishmael stands as a testimony to the impatience of the father of Isaac and Jacob with the timing of God (Genesis 16). 38 G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 48. 39 See ‘The martyrdom of James and Marian’, XII, in Musurillo (2000: 204) for explicit use of imagery from Revelation in this regard.

114

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Tempter appeals is a sham. In fact, he understands himself not as the self given to him by and in time, but as the self promised to him by God. It is ‘out of time’ that he is able to give his life, giving consent with his ‘whole being’ (II.340-3); it is more than just a decision for Thomas, because it is already utterly consonant with who he is, not just as Archbishop but as a self. This is reminiscent, of course, of Secunda’s retort to her captor: ‘I wish to be what I am.’ The point I am making here resembles Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s account of ‘Ultimate and Penultimate Things’.40 It is ‘for the sake of the ultimate that we must speak of the penultimate’.41 Bonhoeffer hopes to resolve the tension between the options of what he calls the ‘radical’ and the ‘compromise’ in the Christian life. Thus, we may say that here Thomas is being offered the path of ‘compromise’. He is being asked to absolutize that which exists;42 to ensure that the ultimate is not allowed to threaten the penultimate. The church may for very noble reasons tread the path of compromise. However, the church that ‘serves the world to the end’ will only become a kind of supposed ur-Christian ideal church-Community that in turn mistakenly confuses the realisation of a Christian ideal with the reality of the living Jesus Christ.43 This accommodation has the appearance of openness and even of love, but is really a resignation to the world and its ways. As Bonhoeffer diagnoses it, ‘Radicalism hates time / Compromise hates eternity.’44 This hatred of eternity is again something visible in the Third Tempter. Having posited this antimony, Bonhoeffer attempts to resolve it Christologically: ‘[T]he relationship between the ultimate and the penultimate is resolved only in Christ.’45 What does he mean by this? He means that Christ in fact embodies both the ultimate and the penultimate together, in his being human delivering a double judgement on human beings – at once both ‘the absolute condemnation of sin and the relative condemnation of existing human orders’.46 Jesus Christ is the ultimate reality; this entails, for Bonhoeffer, the justiﬁcation of the sinner by grace alone; and, further, means not the destruction of the penultimate in exchange for the ultimate but in fact its preservation. ‘The way for the word must be prepared’:47 there is room – indeed a demand – for a kind of preparatio evangelii in and with and among the penultimate. Therefore, regard for the ultimate produces all kinds of deeds in the sphere of the penultimate, rather than a characteristically pietistic withdrawal from that sphere. He writes: 40 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (ed. Clifford J. Green; trans. R. Krauss, C. West and D. Stott; Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Vol. 6; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), pp. 146–70. 41 Ibid., p. 151. 42 Ibid., p. 154. 43 Ibid., p. 156. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid., p. 157. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid., p. 160.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

115

Christian life is the dawn of the ultimate in me, the life of Jesus Christ in me. But it is also always life in the penultimate, waiting for the ultimate.48 Thomas clearly renounces compromise in rejecting the Third Tempter. The question remains, however: has the martyr embraced ‘radicalism’ (in the pietistic sense that Bonhoeffer means it here) and left himself open to the (Rushdiean) charge of the ‘hatred of what exists’? This would be the Aristotelian charge against the Platonist; and this charge lies before the martyr-disciple too. Has the witness to the ultimate lapsed into a denial of the goodness of the penultimate? Is it a failure to recognize that it is, in fact, pen-ultimate – that it actually leads to the ultimate? Has the notion of the duality of time led to a dualism? The discussion of ‘loyal resistance’ has already suggested that this is not the case; and I will give further consideration to the question in the discussion of ‘passive action’ (point vi, below).49 iv. Friendship Thus far we have seen that the self-understanding of the Christian martyr – especially vis-à-vis time and rule – impels him to an attitude of loyal resistance towards the creaturely structures of power that he inhabits. As this section will show, the Christological understanding of friendship to which the martyr witnesses further unsettles the human ordering of relationships – and renders a particular account of the self-among-other-selves. In rejecting the Third Tempter, Thomas clings to his personal ties to the King, however fragile. That is, Thomas does not accept that the needs of the current situation override the ties of personal friendship – even one as compromised and faulty as his with Henry II. Their past intimacy has a claim on him that survives the decline of their friendship. He does not accept the impossibility of reconciliation, or that the breakdown has removed for good what was between them. He does not accept that friendship is a matter of political utility, or that the vicissitudes of recent events nullify the memory of what they shared. We see traces of Thomas’s wistful yearnings for that past friendship in his response to the First Tempter. The possibility of new powers and freedoms for the Church in England are not a trump card over his loyalty to the King whether in his ofﬁce or as a man. In this renunciation he rejects

48 Ibid., p. 168. 49 Reinhard Hütter makes the point (in his reading of Luther scholar Oswald Bayer) that temporality in the concrete life-form of the Christian is not antithetical to eternity (as it is in Aristotle), but as a vita passiva is grounded in God’s salviﬁc actions. ‘Christian faith, as a bios sui generis, is called forth and maintained by distinct temporal acts and procedures such as proclamation of the gospel, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and so on; its object is God’s own salviﬁc activity as carried out in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. And because both faith and theology are grounded in God’s salviﬁc action, and in the strict sense are his works, they are also bound to God’s time’ (R. Hütter, Suffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice (trans. D. Stott; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 37). This description of a tempus ﬁdei is very much in alignment with our discussion of Thomas’s decision to reject the Third Tempter’s view of temporality.

116

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

the ﬁssure of private and public selves that may lead a person to justify such (private) treachery on the grounds of greater (public) good. Within the saga of the rise and decline of the monarchy narrated in the Former Prophets we discover the closest scriptural analogy to Thomas’s situation: the subplot of David’s remarkable loyalty to Saul and its counterpoint in David’s friendship with Saul’s son (and heir), Jonathan. Like Thomas, David exempliﬁes heroic loyalty to his king despite desperate political circumstances. The latter half of 1 Samuel details the ferocious and destructive wrestle for the throne between the two anointed kings of Israel. Again and again, David is given opportunity to murder Saul and to end the bloodshed; but twice he refuses to lift his hand against the Lord’s anointed though presented with the perfect opportunity (1 Sam. 24 and 26; a doublet typical of Hebrew narrative).50 He renounces the hastening of the fulﬁlment of what is promised to him by Yhwh. Even after the war has been won and David’s rule ﬁrmly established, the narrator makes it quite clear that David is not guilty of any direct violence upon the house of Saul. Indeed, he punishes severely those who would do them harm (2 Sam. 1). David has blood on his hands, but it is not Saulide blood. Amidst the turmoil of these years, the deep personal bond between David and Jonathan stands as a bridge between the two parties – in a way that David’s marriage to Michal does not. Jonathan aids David in his escape, and pleads his case to his father. This friendship ironically signals the substitution of David for Jonathan as Saul’s successor. The exchange is symbolically preﬁgured when Jonathan gives David his robe, armour and weapons (2 Sam. 18.4). Despite temptations to more expedient action from the cunning Joab, David is a model of patient waiting. The oath of the Lord (hw’hy> t[;Ûbuv.) that David makes with Jonathan is not overturned by the changing times; and David even extends its beneﬁts to Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s crippled son (2 Sam. 21.7). David’s grief-song, the Song of the Bow, is a touching expression of personal and national loss (2 Sam. 1.18-27). The counterpart to the David–Jonathan story in the second half of the Samuel cycle is the tragic David–Absalom saga. Once again, David, now old and portrayed as somewhat enfeebled by an old man’s sentimentality (certainly Joab thinks so!), cannot disentangle his personal feelings from his public policy. Here, his loyalty crosses the bounds of wisdom, and perhaps indicates a wish to pre-empt the work of Yhwh by securing for himself an heir. David’s experiences of friendship and betrayal in the midst of a struggle for divinely appointed kingship presage the experiences of a later putative messianic king. The Jesus of John’s gospel speaks of the love of one ‘laying down his life for his friends’ (Jn 15.13): that is the greatest love. It is love that he exempliﬁes; but it is the kind of love that will also be at the heart of discipleship – self-sacriﬁce. His public life, as Luke reports, was a life lived among his friends over and against even his own family (Lk. 8.17-19). Friendship with him was a matter of performing his words (Jn 15.14), which elevates the status of disciple from servant to friend (‘[Y]ou are my friends . . .’). However, the

50 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981), p. 68ff.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

117

capriciousness of human friendship was of course something Jesus himself experienced. Not only did he count among his friends Judas, who betrayed him, but at the crucial moment of testing, his disciples ﬂed and left him alone. He went to the cross alone, watched only from a distance. Unsurprisingly, then, part of his teaching to his friends was that they were risking the possibility of this afﬂiction themselves. In Lk. 21, he prophesies their betrayal by family and friends (Lk. 21.16-17). ‘You will be hated by all (misou,menoi u`po. pa,ntwn) because of my name.’ The experience of martyrdom is clearly on view here. Christian discipleship is promised by Jesus to have a destabilizing effect on earthly relationships (as it does for Archbishop Thomas), which may even result in violent rejection. Perhaps laying down one’s life for one’s friend may mean dying at his hand. But the way in which Jesus connects love with friendship is the key here. The divine love of Jesus for real human beings represents a turning toward human beings in friendship despite and even through their violent enmity towards him. In death, Jesus alone stands in the place of his fellow human beings. And yet the point at which he suffers betrayal, rejection, torture and death becomes the point of greatest divine love for human beings and human love for God (see Rom. 5.1-11). In turn, this great realized and actual love of God for human beings and of one human being for God becomes the supreme example of love for the disciples of Christ (Jn 15.13-15; 1 Jn 4.1ff; see also the language of sacriﬁce in Rom. 12.1-2). That such a love will involve concrete, actual bodily sacriﬁce is unmistakable in the language of the NT. This love is shot through with pain – possibly the pain of unreciprocity. As Eliot shows, this means for the Archbishop-martyr that he cannot abandon the King altogether, though there may be violent consequences. Though Thomas has been offered the chance to shut the door on Henry by the Third Tempter, this is not ultimately for him a Christian possibility. Rather, he calls out ‘[O]pen the door!’ (II.351); and, with this, calls down on himself his own murderers, the agents of the King. In his last intimate teaching to his disciples (as reported by John), Jesus makes plain the contrariness of following him. The consequences of a life lived after the pattern of Jesus are dire: rejection by the world is inevitable. The comfort Jesus offers here is that his disciples should realize that they share together in Jesus’s rejection by the people of the world, and so also in his eschatological vindication by the Father.51 Simon Peter has already, with characteristic belligerence, proclaimed his willingness to follow Jesus: Peter said to him, ‘Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.’ (Jn 13.37) At least he, in this blurting-out, has grasped the full meaning of following Jesus: that following him means following him to the limit of life, and even beyond it. But Jesus rebukes him here as he has rebuked him before:

51 See Andrew T. Lincoln, ‘Trials, plots and the narrative of the fourth gospel’, JSNT, 56 (1994), pp. 3–30 (4).

118

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Jesus answered, ‘Will you lay down your life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times.’ (Jn 13.38) Peter’s zeal to die for Christ is undermined by Jesus’s prophecy of his weakness under the pressure to witness to him at the vital moment. Peter’s fault seems to be his exuberant desire to do something for Jesus. He cannot accept that he is not to follow Jesus where he is going now (Jn 13.36), but only afterwards. He cannot accept the passive role. His failure to witness to Christ at the hour of the cruciﬁxion will be a lesson to the whole church that the foundational act of witness is Christ’s alone.52 They are to remember that, no matter what heroisms may trail in the wake of Jesus Christ, no matter what tortures are suffered by those in his name, at the very moment of the church’s foundation Jesus stood alone. Before Pilate, he was accompanied by no others to argue his cause. He was left alone. It will not be so for his followers: they will share his fate, because the world will respond to them as to him. They are servants who are ‘not greater than their master’. Part of being the servant of Jesus is sharing his fate; but he promises to be with them in this moment. o` para,klhtoj, ‘the Advocate’ (NRSV), will be sent from the Father to testify on Jesus’s behalf alongside his followers. This one is also called to. pneu/ma th/j avlhqei,aj, ‘the Spirit of Truth’. The disciples will experience hatred and rejection because of their union with the Son (Jn 15.18-20; 16.1-4a).53 In Jn 15.26, Jesus explains that witness is evidence of true discipleship: ‘this union of life shows itself in the task of witnessing to him’.54 But o` para,klhtoj itself takes on the role of witnessing peri. evmou/ (‘about me’) by inhabiting the believer. After his departure, Jesus’s own testimony to himself will be performed by the Advocate, who comes (as he did) from the Father. The witness of the disciples is not of secondary signiﬁcance to that which the Spirit carries out: it is the same testimony. Their witness is theirs in that they indeed do it, but they do not witness independently of the Spirit. To what ‘Truth’ do the Spirit and the disciples testify? It is peri. evmou/ – it is a testimony concerning Jesus himself. After all, o[ti avpV avrch/j metV evmou/ evste (Jn 15.27) – ‘because from the beginning you were [evste: literally, ‘are’] with me’. The Advocate will teach them to remember Jesus’s teachings (Jn 14.26), which itself does not exclude an interpretational activity and clearly presages 52 th.n yuch,n sou u`pe.r evmou/ qh,seij is construed as a question by the NRSV and punctuated thus by the UBS 4 (United Bible Societies), though it could be read as a prophecy. Such a prophecy does occur in Jn 21.19. However, the emphasis here is not on foretelling Peter’s martyrdom, but rather on posing a question as to his readiness in the present to really follow Jesus in the fullest sense (avkolouqein). For Bultmann (1971: 597, n. 1), Jesus’s answer ‘cannot be a prophecy of martyrdom, but sets out to teach that the believer’s existence depends on the u`pa,gein that precedes it’. The post-resurrection encounter between Peter and Jesus is a deliberate contrast to this one: Peter will experience the kind of death by which doxa,sei to.n qeo,n (Jn 21.19). 53 For the application of this text to the persecutors of the martyrs, see ‘The letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne’, I.15, in Musurillo (2000: 66). 54 Bultmann, The Gospel of John, p. 552.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

119

a passing on of this teaching by and to the community. This continuation of Jesus’s witness about himself is not thus the dry rehearsal of a past event, but speech about a lively present reality continuous with this past.55 The Spirit is a co-witness with(in) the church. These are reassuring words from Jesus in the midst of prediction of all kinds of trials and persecutions. The disciples can take comfort in knowing that they are not abandoned, and their witness to the divine reality that they have encountered in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth will be upheld in the crucible of subsequent events. There is something else, too: though Jesus promises his disciples that they will be more than somewhat wrenched from their earthly moorings, he also promises them to each other. The great organic symbol of the Vine winds through this discourse as a way of speaking to the disciples of their mutual interconnection through Jesus himself. The commands to love begin among the disciples themselves; their love for one another is the very sign of their belonging to Christ (Jn 13.34-5). The scattering of the disciples has its counterpart in a gathering. They are to wash one another’s feet. They will lay down their lives for their friends: the deaths of the persecuted witnesses will turn out to be for the church as a great sign of the presence of the Spirit of Truth among them. Once again, the enactment of these texts is evidenced in the Acta Martyrum. In ‘The Martyrs of Lyons’ we read of Vettius Epagathus, who spoke up ‘in defence of the brethren’ before the governor and his tribunal, and was killed as one who was – in strong allusion to Jn 15.13 – ‘well pleased even to lay down his own life for the defence of the brethren’.56 In this account also the martyrs are seen as expressing in their patient resistance a love for their less courageous brethren;57 and they are also seen as praying for those who persecute them. In ‘The Martyrdom of Marian and James’, the two bishops Agapius and Secundinus inspired many others to follow them in martyrdom out of their strong ‘love to the brethren’.58 At least as far as these early martyrologists were concerned, the path of martyrdom was not abnegation of love for the brethren, but in fact its pure expression.59 It might be protested that the references to friendship as such in the Scriptures are few, especially in the NT. The ecclesio-relational metaphors that are most prominent are organic or fraternal ones – the Vine, the Body, the Brotherhood. This certainly helps protect the church from becoming a community of people I like, or of people like me, in that friends are typically freely chosen for friendship, whereas ecclesial relationships are established on an entirely different basis – namely, by the election of God. On the other 55 Ibid., p. 554. 56 ‘The letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne’, I.10, in Musurillo (2000: 64). 57 ‘This on account of the sincerity of their love was the greatest of all their contests with the Devil, that the Beast being throttled might disgorge alive those whom he at ﬁrst thought to have devoured’ (ibid., II.6, p. 84). 58 ‘The martyrdom of Marian and James’, III.6, in Musurillo (2000: 196). 59 Admittedly, the megayuch, (‘great-souled’) man of Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics may also lay down his life for his friends (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (ed. and trans. Roger Crisp; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 176). But he does so because of self-love: it is the nobility that accrues to him that makes his sacriﬁce of his own life rational.

120

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

hand, the church is not a biological entity either, in the sense that it is not composed only of people who have a particular genetic or racial identity in common. In fact, the church is composed of those who have been ‘unplugged’60 from the primacy of their organic communities. Baptism symbolizes this new form of life. The NRSV’s decision to render VAdelfoi, as ‘friends’ rather than ‘brethren’ would completely change the grammar of ecclesial relationships (if accepted). What is perhaps most overlooked is that material in the NT which is actually most relevant – the actual ecclesial experience of Paul and the others that we glimpse in the greetings and farewells of the epistles (e.g. Phil. 4.1; Romans 16). Here we see that there is apparently a genuine and heartfelt experience of ‘friendship’, touchingly and lovingly recorded in these incidentals. These are those whom Paul addresses as avgaphtoi, (2 Cor. 12.19). But this, of course, is given to us alongside the experience of a painful enmity, too, from within the ecclesial sphere. The apostle does not always count his enmity as outside the church and his experience of friendship as inside. Rather, he actually encounters both in the present reality of church. There is a reminder in this that Judas was one of the Twelve, and that opposition to and treachery against Jesus came from within the small band of apostles who were with him from the very start. Thomas’s experience of opposition with King Henry is, of course, complicated by the fact that the King, his knights and the bishops who support him are – or at least claim to be – on the inside of the church. The martyr declines the path of sedition not only because it is disloyal but also because it is unloving. This directly implies a certain orientation to the good and to others. This love springs from the priority (for the martyr) of the love of Christ himself: the loving action which founded, in the Spirit, the community bearing his name. v. England and Englishness The martyr expresses a Christian identity that is certainly political, but in a very distinct way, as the discussion of friendship has shown. In the same way, his commitment to a national/patriotic self-identity has also been relativized by his witness to Christ. Thomas the martyr does not accept the invitation to designate himself as a patriotic self. The appeal to honour true Englishness goes unheeded; he does not die for his country, but for his Lord. By contrast, the Four Knights make appeal to the audience’s sense of Englishness in their defence of their assassination of Thomas late in the play. They claim for themselves that they have acted on the nation’s behalf and for the nation’s good. The Third Knight in particular trades in this currency: ‘We are four plain Englishmen who put our country ﬁrst’ (II.457-8). Though the Knight is, of course, loyal to the King and

60 The term is used by Slavoj Žižek, who in his audacious (for an atheist!) defence of Christianity makes much the same point: ‘it is love itself that enjoins us to “unplug” from the organic community into which we were born – or, as Paul puts it, for a Christian, there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks’ (Slavoj Žižek, The Fragile Absolute: or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? (London: Verso, 2000), p. 121).

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

121

not a would-be revolutionary, his language is very much akin to that of the Third Tempter. Thomas renounces ‘Englishness’ as the narrative that is most basic to his identity (though it is not completely denied). It is a temptation to which the Christian churches are often prone in the modern era. Bonhoeffer locates the rise of modern nationalism in the era of the French Revolution: ‘[T]he nation is a revolutionary concept.’61 This is hardly a novel reading: however, he makes the provocative assertion that revolutionary nationalism, which is openly hostile to God, arose partly in reaction to the political theology of the Catholic Church (lacking the ‘two-kingdoms’ theology of Luther), which was unable to prevent the loss of ‘the unity that was created by the form of Jesus Christ’.62 In the Anglo-Saxon world – and this relates directly to the situation of Archbishop Thomas in this most Anglo-Saxon of plays – the problem has been rather ‘a collapse of the church into the world’.63 In other words, though there is in the Anglo-Saxon world the phenomenon of a democracy based on a Christian foundation, this has not prevented severe secularization, as Bonhoeffer rightly notes. It is certainly possible to read the temptation of Thomas in this way as a temptation to blur the distinction between ‘the ofﬁces and kingdoms of the state and the church’,64 a temptation to which modern Protestant Christianity has certainly (for Bonhoeffer) succumbed.65 In the Acts of the Apostles the idea of national identity is not dissolved even as the church is gathered and the Gospel spreads to the nations.66 The symbolic key is Pentecost. This miraculous sign comes not to Gentiles, granted, but to Jews dispersed among the nations and who are speakers of many languages. At this moment they are gathered in Jerusalem for the festival. The tongues of ﬂame lead to the speaking in many tongues: the apostles are given the gift

61 ‘Heritage and decay’ in Bonhoeffer, Ethics, p. 120. 62 Ibid., p. 127. Bonhoeffer uses the expression ‘the form of Jesus Christ’ in contrast with the unity created by the institution(s) of the Church in western Europe – a unity intended to mimic and even advance the unity created by the Word of God in Christ, but which became instead confused with it and even a parody of it. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid., pp. 103–33. In the same vein, in and after the 1914–18 War the language of martyrdom was applied to the sacriﬁce of the young men who died for England on the battleﬁeld. Using this language no doubt brought great comfort to the bereaved. In particular, the text that features again and again in memorials is Jn 15.13, ‘greater love hath no man than this’. A well-known hymn from the period, ‘O Valiant Hearts’ by Sir John Arkwright, makes the connection between patriotism and religion explicit: Still stands his Cross from that dread hour to this, like some bright star above the dark abyss; still, through the veil, the Victor’s pitying eyes look down to bless our lesser Calvaries. These were his servants, in his steps they trod, following through death the martyred Son of God: Victor, he rose; victorious too shall rise they who have drunk his cup of sacriﬁce. 66 Of course, the Biblical idea of ‘nation’ and the modern idea of the nation-state are not exactly equivalent, though there is enough overlap to make the comparison viable.

122

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

of speaking in the languages of those present. There is not one language that all are given to hear – the miracle is in the apostles’ mouths, not just in the hearers’ ears. Peter, for his sermon on the event, takes as his text the ancient prophecy of Joel: ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people’ (Joel 2.14).67 If there is a reversal of Babel, it is not in terms of a restoration of a primordial universal language. The Spirit, which makes possible the hearing of the gospel of the Son, is the uniﬁcatory principle in this event: the message, not the language, is what is held in common. Though dispersed Israel is addressed here, the rest of the narrative of the book shows how this invitation is extended to the Gentiles as well. Interestingly, Luke’s Paul does not renounce or deny his Roman citizenship and is in fact happy to use the fact that he was born to this status to gain a hearing (Acts 22.25-29). The inauguration of the church does not therefore mean the dissolution of the nations. This is how the promise to Abraham that ‘all nations will be blessed through you’ (Gen. 18.18; Gal. 3.18) comes to pass in the preaching of the apostles. This means an engrafting of the nations into Israel: an offering of membership in the people of God extended to the whole globe (Romans 9–11; Ephesians 2). John of Patmos seems to imply that nations maintain their identity even in the eternal vision, where they bring their glory and honour (Rev. 21.26), and receive healing from the leaves of the tree of life (Rev. 22.2). Around the great throne is gathered a multitude visible to the seer as ‘from every nation, tribe, people and language’, singing the song of the salvation of the Lamb (Rev. 7.9). However, insofar as the nations (and their kings) are ranged against the Lord and his Son, they are utterly defeated (Rev. 19.15-16; see Psalm 2). The martyr, therefore, does not witness against all national or tribal identiﬁcations per se, but to their relative signiﬁcance. The early martyrologies depict the martyrs as at times stubbornly refusing any identiﬁcation of themselves but as Christian. In Chapter 4 I cited the story of one named Sanctus, who resisted them with such determination that he would not even tell them his own name, his race, or the city he was from, whether he was a slave or a freedman. To all of their questions he answered in Latin ‘I am a Christian!’68 This may well have been intended by the author as a hyperbolic instance of the self-identiﬁcation of the martyrs as Christian transcending all other ascriptions; certainly, other martyrs are not as radical in this as is Sanctus. However, the priority of self-identiﬁcation with Christ instead of with other matrices of identiﬁcation is a recurring theme in the martyr-acts. Thomas is actually given back to England as her martyr – and seen as a focus of national pride. The play itself is a demonstration of English ownership of this martyr, even in the 1930s. This is an ambivalent side of the story (of which Eliot appears to be aware): the ‘having’ of martyrs and saints by various 67 This text also features in the opening chapter of ‘The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas’, in Musurillo (2000: 107). 68 ‘The letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne’, I.20, in Musurillo (2000: 69).

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

123

locales perhaps fosters the very kind of tribalism that the martyr dies to avoid.69 However, there is a sense in which Thomas’s rejection of Englishness as an absolute makes a godly pride in Englishness possible. In addition, the telling and retelling (or rather, re-enacting) of a martyr’s tale stands as a rebuke to a certain form of nationalism – as evidence of its self-destructive consequences.70 vi. Passive action? Ultimately, Eliot shows that it is action that is problematic for martyrs. It is not that Thomas renounces action as such, but rather that he renounces a type of action and embraces another kind – the ‘passive action’ of 1 Peter.71 He renounces the course by which a man may deﬁne himself – or even be deﬁned – by the greatness of his deeds. He renounces the assertion of his own will over England, and against Henry, whatever good may result. He does not engage in a balancing of goods one against another. He refuses to do anything at all. What he does is merely submit himself to the will of God. Thomas knows this even early in the play, prior to his temptation, when he says of the townswomen-chorus:

They know and do not know, what it is to act or suffer. They know and do not know, that action is suffering And suffering is action. Neither does the agent suffer Nor the patient act. But both are ﬁxed In an eternal action, an eternal patience To which all must consent that it may be willed And which all must suffer that they may will it, That the pattern may subsist, for the pattern is the action And the suffering . . . (I.208-17)

69 Peter Brown describes the role of the saints and martyrs in the ‘localization of the holy’ in late antiquity. (Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 86–8.) 70 Edith Cavell, executed for aiding Allied prisoners during WWI, was reported to have said on the night before she died: ‘standing as I do in view of God and eternity, I realize that patriotism is not enough’. 71 In his discussion of the ecclesiological locus of theology, Reinhard Hütter (2000) introduces the concept of ‘pathos’ (for Luther, passio). By this he means to indicate that surrender to God’s own voice which characterizes ‘the core of Christian existence’. This is the vita passiva of faith, which, of course, issues in a vita activa. ‘This human pathos’, he writes, ‘corresponds to God’s own poiesis, the poiesis of the Holy Spirit.’ Hütter describes how the theologian’s pathos is conditioned by ‘God’s own poiesis’; but we could speak of the martyr in exactly the same way. Indeed, he goes on to discuss Luther’s ‘Seven Marks of the Church’, of which the last is ‘discipleship in suffering’. The point is that these constitutive marks are the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the church. However, these marks, insofar as they are practices, are not to be understood as ‘generated’ by the Spirit and then ‘realized’ by the human agent. Hütter’s intriguing suggestion for resolving this tension is to see the practices as subsisting enhypostatically in the Spirit. The human being remains the recipient of all the church practices, even though it might be said that human activity is always an inherent part of them. My notion of ‘passive action’ strongly resembles Hütter’s terminology of ‘pathos’ (Hütter, 2000: 30–31, 130, 132).

124

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

This is highly elusive speech; but it is prescient of Thomas’s own destiny unfolded in the play. He, too, ‘knows and does not know’ about the inevitable relationship between acting and suffering. Action among human beings involves the consequences and entanglements that result from that action. It means the responsibility and perhaps even culpability for that action even though the results are possible only to guess at. Conversely, suffering is a kind of action, in the sense that Thomas displays by his submitting to his martyr’s path. In fact, it is the eternal action of God (which is, of course, ‘patient’) that matters most – ‘the pattern’. Eliot comes very close to making Thomas reﬂect the Eastern spirituality that he explored in poems like The Waste Land: the language of the wheel and the ﬁxing of time suggests a depersonalizing of divine providence away from an orthodox Christian theism. True, the God of Murder in the Cathedral appears at times remote and remorseless. Yet, however close Eliot sails to this wind in the play, he does not quite tack to the East. What Eliot effectively dramatizes is the apparent remoteness of God from the world of the martyr’s experience in its tragic and violent aspect. For him, God’s ﬁnal verdict is as-yet concealed, though Christologically glimpsed. In what sense does martyr Thomas nonetheless act, having rejected the action offered to him by the Tempter? He has grasped that ‘action’ is not a category of pure freedom or power. He has experienced the frailty of human acting, set about as it is with complications and reactions and myriad unforeseeable consequences. He also knows the dubious way he has acted in the past and his inability to escape the results of these actions except via divine forgiveness. For the audience’s sake, the priests have noted the pride that Thomas exhibited during his political career (I.118). However, in his last sermon Thomas declares that ‘the true martyr is he who has become the instrument of God, who has lost his will in the will of God . . .’ (Interlude 68-9). The temptations are a dramatization of the genuine alternatives open to Thomas; but the martyr does not assert his will such that it results in an action he may call his own. Rather, he determines to be in accord with the willing and acting of God. There are echoes here of Christ – this time under the extreme pressure of Gethsemane (Mk 14.32-52 and parallels): he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. He said, ‘Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.’ Here Jesus, too, glimpses another possibility. He knows the full horror of what is to come. He wishes that there were some other way. He pleads that the will of God would not be done through the temporary triumph of evil. Here he does not set his will against God’s will, or offer any helpful suggestion of an alternative plan to God – only that God would will differently. In the end he prays ‘not my will, but yours’ – he submits his will to his Father’s will. He does not understand the will of God as some remorseless impersonal engine of fate grinding him in its cogs. The plan of God is something to which he can freely submit or else there is no submission to it at all.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

125

The word ‘lost’ in Thomas’s sermon jars with the Gethsemane narrative somewhat. The loss of the will suggests dissolution of the person’s will into the divine pattern – again, perhaps, a more Eastern or mystical concept than what we see Jesus doing here. Jesus does not dissolve his will into the will of the Father, neither does he reluctantly resign himself to the will of God; rather, he actively embraces it, saying, as Karl Barth wrote, ‘a radiant Yes to the actual will of God’.72 The prayer completes his obedience. This is certainly the reading of this episode given in Heb. 5.7-10, where the prayer is seen as part of Jesus’s High-Priestly ministry which prepared him for his sacerdotal and sacriﬁcial role. In this prayer, as Jesus accepts the bitter cup of God’s wrath, his obedience comes to complete fruition. In this garden his obedience blossoms. It is what Jesus does: like the Messianic voice of the Psalms,73 he directs his voice to God and waits. In the tumultuous end of the Gethsemane scene, as he is being betrayed and arrested, Jesus castigates both his sword-wielding disciple and his captors: ‘[H]ave you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?’ (Mk 14.48). They have misconstrued the essential nature of Jesus’s ‘action’, because they have not grasped his true identity.74 The ﬁrst martyrologists report that this misconstrual was repeated in the executions of the martyrs. Directly related to this ‘act’ of the martyr is the relation of ‘faith’ to ‘works’ as expounded in the theology of Martin Luther. Luther argued that the righteous person – namely, the person declared by God to be so – is the truly human person. His critics – among them latterly Herbert Marcuse – have argued that the principle of justiﬁcation by faith alone excuses a person from responsibility for their actions in the world, because it posits a schism between the inner, justiﬁed person and the outer, sinful person. For his part, Eberhard Jüngel has mounted a strong defence of Luther.75 He argues ﬁrst that Luther’s critics have mistaken his distinguishing of the person and work for a separation. But, turning the tables somewhat, Jüngel argues that the modern world has rather made human actions the basic compositional unit of the human self. We moderns understand ourselves as acting subjects. The damaging consequences of this view of the acting self are numerous: from an instrumentality in human relationships, to a removal of the dignity of those who cannot act, who are limited in their ability to act (the disabled and the elderly in particular). Even Aristotle’s more moderate vision of a subject who is both responsive and active falls under this critique; for Aristotle cannot envisage a truly good human life without the expression of virtues through action.76 Against this, Luther teaches from his reading of Paul that human beings 72 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (trans. Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas Forsyth Torrance; London: T&T Clark International, 2nd edn, 2004), IV.i., p. 270. 73 For example, Ps. 40:1–3. 74 The emphasis on makroqumi,a| (‘patience’) and u`pomonh. (‘endurance’) in the Acta Martyrum conﬁrms the determination of the early martyrs and their martyrologists to see themselves as imitating Christ in this virtue. 75 We note with interest that Paul Ricoeur (1994: 25) cites Jüngel’s account of faith in connection with his own philosophy of the self. 76 Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness, p. 333f.

126

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

are not constituted by their acts at all; rather, this self-realization is overthrown by the gospel. What iustitia ﬁdei explains is that it is God who judges, declares and determines; it is he who calls human beings to themselves. It is he who even gives them to themselves. This, then, is the basis for a true human agency, and a new human work (see Eph. 2.8-10). That is the ‘freedom of a Christian’: an evangelical freedom to do all sorts of good works. Jüngel perhaps insufﬁciently outlines what ‘faith’ might mean. It seems crucial to Luther’s theology (and, in my view, to Paul’s) to establish that faith is not an alternative kind of action as such, although it is a thing ascribed to human agents. Faith is in this way similar to the passive action that I have been describing.77 It is, however, action. The difference from Aristotle’s view is that, whereas he sees the agent as now active, now passive, the Christian agent is called to action that is qualitatively different. It may be objected that this action is so passive that it neglects the pressing and, indeed, righteous need for a ‘proper’ action. I have already asked, with Bonhoeffer, whether the martyr, in rejecting compromise, ﬂies headlong into the arms of Christian radicalism (that is, pietistic withdrawal). The choice for martyrdom could be seen as an appalling loss of nerve. In a world that demands us to act, martyrdom refuses action (as the world sees it) and embraces only suffering. The vita activa is always morally compromised, but it is a necessary responsibility of true humanity. The choice of inaction appears more spiritual because it is other-worldly. Certainly, it was the oft-times bitter historical experience of the early church that gave rise to the privileging of the vita contemplativa over the vita activa (and hence the charge of Platonism).78 But this choice could certainly be read as an abdication of responsibility. The martyr (it seems) leaves behind the messy business of living in the complex world of human affairs. The author of the account of Perpetua’s martyrdom clearly wants the reader to be impressed – even shocked – by the nursing mother who would rather give up her child than compromise with the authorities. The mention of her breast-feeding ensures that we do not miss the point.79 Was not her ﬁrst loyalty to the child as its mother? Is not the ﬁrst duty of Thomas to his ﬂock as their pastor? Bonhoeffer explores this question in his Ethics, notably in ‘History and Good [1]’ and ‘History and Good [2]’,80 where he argues that responsible action is that which is most in accordance with reality.81 That reality is ‘the reality of the God who became human’.82 This action, however, is neither an endorsement of the status quo nor a blessing of revolution. It begins with the action of God in Christ ‘reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Cor. 5.18). 77 See Eberhard Jüngel, ‘On becoming truly human’, in Theological Essays I(i), (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 216–40. Reinhard Hütter (2000: 31) makes the same equation. 78 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1998), p. 318. 79 ‘The martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas’, VI, in Musurillo (2000: 115). 80 Bonhoeffer, Ethics, pp. 219–45, 246–98. 81 Ibid., p. 220. 82 Ibid., p. 223.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

127

Responsible action is grounded and circumscribed in Jesus Christ. Bonhoeffer is clear that this is not merely an ideology which carries all before it. He writes: [T]he task is not to turn the world upside down but in a given place to do what, from the perspective of reality, is necessary objectively and to really carry it out83 – that is, to do what is possible within the human domain. God becoming human means that responsible actions likewise have to occur within that domain. The ultimate evaluation of these actions is only for God. Responsible action ‘must completely surrender to God both the judgment on this action and its consequences’.84 For his part, Thomas quite openly does this in the end, unable to do otherwise. The question is whether or not he could have acted responsibly in alliance with the Third Tempter’s faction. Bonhoeffer turns to the Sermon on the Mount, where he ﬁnds a powerful picture of suffering action: The Sermon on the Mount confronts those who are compelled to act within history with the event of the reconciliation of the world with God in Jesus Christ, thus placing them into genuine Christian responsibility.85 The Sermon on the Mount is not a manifesto of withdrawal from the historical-political sphere, contrary to the way in which it has been read for much of Christian history. Historical-political action and Christian action have been seen as opposites – statehood without self-assertion or force is thought impossible. ‘Turning the other cheek’ or ‘love your enemies’ are not plans for kings to rule by, as ordinarily conceived. Bonhoeffer also points out that even the most cynical uses of power in the West ‘always need a mask of Christian concepts in order to succeed’.86 The Third Tempter has certainly grasped this! He is asking Thomas to baptize his self-assertion, which is a recognition that force is not sufﬁcient on its own to effect rule. Again, the response is Christologically framed: the action of God in taking human ﬂesh and inserting himself into the world of real human beings shows in its very particularity that he is concerned for real human beings in the concreteness of their existence and not merely for the idea of them. The Sermon on the Mount is the voice of the incarnate love of God calling people to love one another and to a renunciation of everything that gets in the way of that possibility. This must include action in the sphere of the political, because God’s love for the world is not partitioned. To act in accordance with Christ is to recognize that

83 84 85 86

Ibid., p. 225. Ibid., p. 226. Ibid., p. 239. Ibid., p. 240. The editors of the Works reference a comment from Baumgarten, who observes that this is a particularly English form of hypocrisy(!).

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

128

‘the world is loved, judged and reconciled in Jesus Christ by God’,87 which is the true reality of things. ‘Responsibility’ (Verantwortung) is a key notion for Bonhoeffer, and includes the sense of ‘answering’ not perhaps captured in the English word. Bonhoeffer expounds responsibility in terms of Stellevertretung, or ‘vicarious representative action’. Jesus was the model of this type of action in becoming human, in dying as cruciﬁed and in the resurrection; and ‘all of life through him is destined to be vicarious representative action’.88 There is the suggestion of a resemblance here with what the Tempter invites Thomas to do: to act as a representative of his people, in their stead and for their good. However, Bonhoeffer differentiates Stellevertretung from that self-appointed representation by claiming that only the selfless person is able to act responsibly – as parent, as pastor, as citizen.89 Does Thomas act ‘responsibly’? Bonhoeffer’s own case and Thomas’s are not parallel; but Bonhoeffer’s theology of responsible action makes room for both cases to be witnessed as authentic testimony to Christ’s paradigmatic Stellevertretung. Knowing the complications and the risk of perdition, Thomas offers in his sermon his own resolve to submit only to the will of God. He renounces the pragmatism and hedonism of the tempters and the consequentialism of those who ‘argue by results . . . to settle if an act be good or bad’ (II.333); in sight of the swords of his killers he gives his life ‘[T]o the Law of God above the Law of Man’, in conﬁdence that: We have only to conquer Now, by suffering. This is the easier victory. Now is the triumph of the Cross, now Open the door! (II.348-51) He acts – ‘conquers’ – but in a suffering way: as a self the martyr makes himself available for a vicariously representative action in conformity to the cross of Christ.

E

The responsibility of martyrdom

The Third Tempter offers Eliot’s Thomas an enticing and even reasonable possibility. In alliance with the barons lies the possibility of greater freedom and power for the Archbishop and his church. Tyranny and injustice – and patriotic duty – surely warrant an active response if balance is to be restored and good government achieved. Eliot presents his audience with a particular example of a situation repeated (with variations) many times in the history of the church: in which there is opportunity to overthrow unjust rule with a 87 Ibid., p. 264. 88 Ibid., p. 259. 89 See Bernd Wannenwetsch, ‘“Responsible Living” or “Responsible Self”? Bonhoefferian reflections on a vexed moral notion’, Studies in Christian Ethics, 18 (2005), pp. 125–40.

THE THIRD TEMPTATION

129

view to substituting for it a form of rule in which the church’s interests are more evidently protected and even promoted. Roger Scruton, with Eliot’s own political writings as an inspiration, argues that cultures are religious, and that England needs its Church to help explain itself to itself. The self that Thomas is invited to consider is the one who acts in harmony with unfolding events. In this lies his potential greatness: that he is able to assert himself while recognizing his own limitations as a creature under the inscrutable hand of fate. This self accepts as fundamental the ideal of his national identity, and orders other values to this one principle and the duties that it demands. The need for action for the good of the country trumps whatever ties of amity bind his private self. On the other hand, the martyr is open to the accusation that he is neglecting the very real needs of justice and good government in his own nation and missing a chance to forward the cause of the church in the world. He is prone to sentimental attachments and to religious fanaticism – both of which lead him to a serious imbalance in his evaluation of the circumstances and how to act ﬂexibly and sensibly in response to them. He stands charged with favouring the spiritual above the material. However, in renouncing this option, the martyr is acting responsibly for the sake of others. As we saw with Thomas and with the early martyrs, they were in fact demonstrating loyalty to ruler and nation by showing them their own relative authority and signiﬁcance under the divine rule which was their source. Love, as exempliﬁed, taught and communicated by Christ, is capable of encompassing both the lapse (and even loss) of friendship and open hostility.90 This love, by which the Christian community is turned to one another and given its identity, also breaks down the human walls of ethnic and tribal identity. The martyr does not assert himself as a master of time and attempt to seize hold of it; neither does he yield to an impersonal fate. Rather – and this is a pattern that has emerged from each of the discussions thus far – he accepts time as being under the superintendence of divine providence. The character of this divine providence is grasped by the Christian martyr in Christological terms. Thomas’s refusal of the temptation is carried out in imitation of Christ’s own refusal of his temptations, just as it was for the early martyrs. The martyr identiﬁes himself with Christ; or perhaps, more accurately, testiﬁes to Christ’s identiﬁcation of him. His choice for martyrdom – as he subordinates his action and resolve to the purposes and actions of God – is a choice to be designated as Christ’s, above all other possible ‘natural’ designations. Eliot’s Thomas (for example) reads his own murder as an analogy of Christ’s and as the provident design of God. In this way, it is he who more truly represents and takes responsibility for the people, rather than the baronial landowners. As a self he allows himself to be narrated transcendently – in God’s time – rather than grasping at his own version of himself in immediate time. The martyr as a self opens himself to the possibility of a divine action and a divine designation – the divine narration. As John 90 This is a riposte, too, to Rushdie’s accusation that martyrdom ‘perverts love’ (see Chapter 2).

130

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Milton wrote, imagining the words that Patience herself might say to him as he descended into blindness: ‘God doth not need Either man’s work or his own gifts. Who best Bear His mild yoke, they serve Him best. His state Is kingly: thousands at His bidding speed, And post o’er land and ocean without rest; They also serve who only stand and wait.’91

91 ‘Sonnet XVI, in John Milton, The Complete Poems (ed. John Leonard; London: Penguin, 1998), p. 84.

6

The fourth temptation: the temptation of honour and reward, and martyrdom as renunciation

A

Introduction

Thus far it has been established that Christian martyrdom follows a path away from the ordinary human calculations of safety and security; away from mere collusion with earthly power (though not away from recognizing its legitimate authority); and away from the type of assertive action that is driven by idealism and self-deﬁnition. Now we turn to the last of the temptations facing Thomas, and indeed so many martyrs. It is the one most troubling and hardest to renounce: it is most difﬁcult to disentangle his own will-to-glory from the rightness of the course he is about to take. He is now called to imagine the verdict of history upon himself with pride – to narrate himself into triumph. Then, even more powerfully, he is asked to consider the heavenly glory that will be his if he makes a martyr of himself. As he says: The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason. (I.667-8) This turning of his motive towards his own self-interest would corrupt his martyrdom. Thomas recognizes that it can scarce be avoided. But what alternative does he have? In this last phase, martyrdom itself comes as a temptation, because it results in recognition by others. Whereas Thomas had until now been enticed away from the path of martyrdom, now he is called to embrace it – only to ﬁnd himself accused of unholy motives. The temptation is to turn the prospect of a violent and ugly death into a comprehensible act – to make it somehow possible to own or control the terms of one’s death via the discourse of martyrdom. It may then become the path to an understanding of the self – a self-narration, indeed. The prospect of earthly honour and/or heavenly rewards may well 131

132

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

make it seem worth the physical pain of a martyr’s death. This ‘temptation to honour’ is one that has confronted the Christian martyrological tradition since the earliest times; and it is fair to say it has not always been resisted. Christian martyrdom involves a transformation of the notion of honour because it is a self-narration construed as an imitation of Christ himself. However, the idea of a heavenly reward as a substitute for earthly honour threatens to undo this transformation. While it is not clear that all the early theologians of martyrdom disentangled themselves from this problem, I shall show, with the help of Augustine, that there is a way forward: the Heavenly City is a very different object of longing; the heavenly rewards are given on a very different basis from earthly rewards. Furthermore, Christian martyrdom (like discipleship) turns out not to be a self-narration at all.

B

The fourth temptation

i. The power to bind The Second Tempter taunted Thomas by suggesting that ‘Your sin soars sunward, covering kings’ falcons’ (I.384). That is, it is merely his pride rather than some holy virtue that enables him to overcome this temptation to power (so the Tempter accuses). This suggestion now returns to Thomas in the guise of the Fourth Tempter, whose appearance is a surprise: after all, Christ himself was offered only three temptations. The Tempter introduces himself by this curious stanza:

As you do not know me, I do not need a name, And, as you know me, that is why I come. You know me, but have never seen my face. To meet before was never time or place. (I. 481-4) The paradox implies that this Tempter is so close to Thomas’s own heart that, though he is strangely unrecognizable, he is yet familiar. This underscores the grave danger presented here: the temptation he presents is not a turn back to the past (as were the ﬁrst two temptations) but something that is a part of Archbishop Thomas’s present, and indeed his possible future. The Tempter himself describes the previous temptations as hooks baited with ‘morsels of the past’ (I.486), and uses his ﬁrst speech (I.485-500) to diminish their power. Throughout, he reminds Thomas that he is only telling him what he already knows (e.g. I.525), underscoring the impression that the temptations come to Thomas as parts of himself that are already there. As such, the Tempter is more making an accusation than offering a temptation. He is exposing what appears to be a trap within the path of martyrdom which threatens to completely unmake it. His counsel is for Thomas to look at events from the perspective of the ‘end’ (I.501). The power Thomas wields as Archbishop of Canterbury surpasses that of any king or baron. Temporal power is uncertain and changeable; even Henry will realize this when he dies without son or empire, as the Tempter accurately prophesies (I.518). On the other hand, the ‘general grasp of spiritual

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

133

power’ (I.507) that comes from the possession of the keys ‘of heaven and hell’ is of eternal signiﬁcance. This spiritual power is, of course, the power to bind and to loose: to represent Christ himself in the declaration of forgiveness or in the condemnation to hell (from Mt. 16.19).1 The Tempter calls Thomas to exercise his spiritual power, to ‘wind / The thread of eternal life and death’ (I.521): to damn his enemies. ii. The martyr’s earthly glory The Tempter next enjoins Thomas to ‘think of glory after death’ (I.528). The sequence of kings continues on into the future, with the authority of each individual king not surviving his death. Before Thomas is the enticing thought that ‘[S]aint and Martyr rule from the tomb’ (I.532). The one who dies gloriously will live on in renown. Enemies will be forced to come ‘[C]reeping in penance’ (I.534) to the tomb of the fallen saint; pilgrims will venerate the richly decorated shrine; and miracles will be performed in his name. From the audience’s perspective, this aspect of the temptation has power because of the knowledge that this is, in fact, what happened in Archbishop Thomas’s case following his martyrdom in 1170.2 Quite rapidly his tomb became a shrine, and even King Henry was forced into a humiliating act of penance before it.3 Even the making of the play itself is part of this remembrance of Thomas as a spiritual hero. Thomas ought to imagine this, and to think of his enemies in ‘another place’ – that is, hell (I.540). According to this temptation, the martyr will exercise ‘rule’ from the grave in that, even though he will be dead, his glorious memory will exude a spiritual power to shape history. Thomas is asked here to consider the verdict of history falling in his favour. Dying in this righteous way will vindicate him, and, by contrast, will expose the injustices of his enemy. His own cult will arise; he will become, indeed, a kind of spiritual celebrity. Thomas, of course, has the roll-call of the church’s many martyrs to consider as an example – most famously the way in which the Acta Martyrum portrayed the deaths of the martyrs of the early church as moments of victory over their oppressors.4 The memory of those martyrs – the retelling of their stories –

1 Recalling the Second Tempter’s words (see Chapter 4). 2 Barlow (1986: 274) records: ‘A year or two after his [Thomas’s] death, Peter of Celle, abbot of St Remi at Rheims, in a letter to John of Salisbury . . . reminded his old friend of how, during the exile, they had often joked together about Thomas and groaned over the impossibility of ever being able to obtain a shrine big enough to contain him. And now God had made of them a laughing-stock, for now everyone in England as in France was ﬂocking to his tomb – and he himself had just returned from a pilgrimage to Canterbury.’ 3 For a full description of Henry’s penitential visit to the shrine of St Thomas, see Barlow, Thomas Becket, pp. 269–70. 4 It is worth noting that, for an English-speaking audience, the inﬂuence of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs in the making of martyrology is inestimable. Foxe not only recorded the martyrdoms of the Reformation, but placed them in a tradition continuous with those of the early church. (Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London: Penguin, 2004), pp. 345–6.)

134

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

was, by all accounts, instrumental in the rise of Christianity.5 However, the Tempter changes tack entirely in his next speech, undoing his own words (I.542-60). Rather than fame and renown, Thomas should think on the turning wheel of history: ‘that nothing lasts, but the wheel turns’ (I.547). There may indeed be a period of veneration – but there will be a time when the glory has faded and when the claims for miracles dissipate. ‘And men shall only do their best to forget you’ (I.554). Even beyond this comes a time of rather cynical disinterest, when the possibility of sanctity has been entirely disavowed. This will be a time When men shall declare that there was no mystery About this man who played a certain part in history. (I.559-60) The audience again knows more than Thomas here: the Reformation period with its attack on saints’ shrines and pilgrimages was followed by the period of modern dispassion, in which Thomas has become a ﬁgure of mere historical curiosity. Through the Fourth Tempter Eliot speaks to the audience of their own cynicism. They are likely to have heard the talk of miracles and pilgrimages as naïve and superstitious. For the modern audience, hagiography is extremely problematic because it shows too little disinterest and too little interest in the ‘historical fact’ (I.558). iii. No enduring crown? Thomas recognizes that the period of glorious sainthood, of ‘ruling from the tomb’, will be followed by a more distant period of forgetfulness and indifference. The despair of this second speech shatters the enticing prospect of the ﬁrst. Thomas asks: ‘Is there no enduring crown to be won?’ (I.562). The Tempter’s response is in the end the really sharp temptation for Thomas, and trumps the other, temporal temptations. It is the temptation to pursue heavenly glory for its own sake:

Seek the way of martyrdom, make yourself the lowest On earth, to be high in heaven (I.569-70). Compared with this, as Thomas well knows, earthly glory and pride are nothing. This richness and grandeur are sublime. However, in seizing at this path Thomas is falling prey to pride – which is (in the Augustinian tradition at least) the greatest of sins. He would be his own judge: proclaiming himself saint and martyr and so passing a verdict that only falls to God himself to give. The motivation for debasing himself on earth is the exaltation he receives as a result in heaven. The Tempter also pictures Thomas having a vision of his persecutors not merely as they do penance, but in ‘timeless torment, / [P]arched passion, beyond expiation’ (I.571-2).

5 Tertullian’s famous comment was: ‘The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is the seed’ (‘Apology’, L, in Tertullian, The Writings of Tertullianus, p. 139).

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

135

Thomas recognizes that these are his deepest longings.6 But what is the price of this temptation? The Tempter replies: I offer what you desire. I ask What you have to give. Is it too much For such a vision of eternal grandeur? (I.578-80) This is diabolical reasoning: what Thomas wants is the glory of sainthood; what Thomas has to give is himself. And yet the payment of the price undoes the possibility of receiving the reward. This is what Thomas can ﬁnally see: ‘[Y]ou only offer / Dreams to damnation’ (I.582-3). In fact, the pride of the would-be saint in desiring the status and prestige of sainthood is fatal to the soul. Grasping at the heavenly reward means only its loss. What appears to be an act of humility in earthly terms may still in fact be a self-justiﬁcation. Thomas is left with a despairing question: Can I neither act nor suffer Without perdition? (I.589-90) Can the would-be martyr at the moment of decision ever be free from this sinful pride – which means in the end the undoing of the meaning of the decision itself? Thomas is caught in a dilemma – accused, rather than tempted. If he refuses the Second and Third Tempters and instead embraces martyrdom, is he not just trading the pride of earthly power for another – even more sinful – form of pride? And yet, isn’t he called by God to precisely this action? Is this exactly what God requires of him? Can he renounce the ﬁrst three temptations without embracing the fourth? Under the Fourth Tempter’s reasoning, God himself turns out to be demonic because he calls on men and women to do what he then refuses to reward on the grounds of pride. There is no enduring crown to be won. As if to underline the irony of the situation, the Tempter then proceeds to speak Thomas’s own opening speech back to him (‘[Y]ou know and do not know . . .’ I.591ff).

C

The ethics of honour and the theology of heavenly rewards

i. Honour Thomas admits that he has thought of ‘ruling from the tomb’, imagining the parades of pilgrims at his shrine and the posthumous glory of his name. The Tempter exposes to him his own desire for honour and renown. If martyrdom is merely a Christianized form of the ethics of honour, then it is problematic – something that Thomas can himself see. 6 Eliot scholar Craig Raine puts it this way: ‘The Fourth Tempter voices the temptation buried so deep inside Becket that he is initially unprepared, surprised, to discover that spiritual pride is a factor in his willingness to embrace martyrdom’ (Craig Raine, T. S. Eliot, Lives and Legacies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 117).

136

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

The ‘honour ethic’ is characterized, in the ﬁrst place, by its vicariousness. It is an ethic which deems some forms of life – that of the warrior, for example – as more praiseworthy than ordinary ways of living. Nevertheless, the honoured hero serves as a representative example of the kind of virtues that a community wants to celebrate. This ‘higher’ life is associated with glory and fame because the honourable person, having taken some risk with the things ordinary people deem precious, succeeds with skill and resolve. Traditionally ‘masculine’ virtues are those that are praised: strength, endurance, mastery. Honour involves looking and being looked at as a self: reputation, in other words.7 Secondly, honour emphasizes the masculinized world of military duty and honour. It is therefore bound closely to suffering and death. The notion of ‘good death’ as a means of preserving honour has roots in the Classical tradition, the context in which Christian martyrdom ﬁrst emerged. Rome revelled in her glorious defeats as much as in her triumphs. A famous example is recorded by Lucan in his epic Pharsalia: the small military band led by Volteius, ﬁnding themselves surrounded, choose to commit suicide rather than face death at the hands of the enemy. Volteius intones: No man’s life is short Who can take thought for death, nor is your fame Less than a conqueror’s, if with breast advanced Ye meet your destined doom. None know how long The life that waits them. Summon your own fate, And equal is your praise, whether the hand Quench the last ﬂicker of departing light, Or shear the hope of years.8 Volteius and his soldiers choose noble suicide as a way of rescuing dignity from defeat. This kind of death means that they will live on in glorious memory rather than be forgotten, which is what Lucan’s poem itself achieves.9 Asserting their own fate – advancing the breast to the unsheathed sword – ensures their fame. Thirdly, then, that which is honourable is that action which is an exercise of volition. In the terms of the Classical honour code the exercise of volition was fundamental. The suicide of Volteius and his men was an act of will when none seemed available. The voluntary death preserved the soldiers’ honour because by it they demonstrated that they were not the hapless victims of their enemies. It was a conspicuous act of sacriﬁce of life which restored honour where it had been on the point of being lost, and even ensured ongoing renown.10 7 Julian Roberts, ‘Honour’ in The Routledge Encylopedia of Philosophy, www.rep. routledge.com/article/L036 (accessed 1 May 2006). 8 Lucan, The Pharsalia of Lucan (trans. Edward Ridley; London: Longmans, Green & Co., 2nd edn, 1905), IV.535–42, p. 108. 9 Carole Straw, ‘A very special death: Christian martyrdom in its classical context’, in Margaret Cormack (ed.), Sacriﬁcing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 39–57. 10 Carlin Barton, ‘Honor and sacredness in the Roman and Christian worlds’, in Margaret Cormack (ed.), Sacriﬁcing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

137

Critics of the honour ethic have a very ancient heritage indeed: Plato himself posited the citizen’s reason above the military value of honour as the ground for the highest kind of life.11 The Stoics, too, spoke strongly against the desire for honour because they held that it put value in mere appearance. Since the Enlightenment, honour has largely been a suppressed discourse because it does not ﬁt well either with the romantic ethic of personal authenticity or with the rationalist/utilitarian appeal to ‘reason’.12 That is, it would be allowing others’ opinions too much inﬂuence to speak of the self in terms of what is honourable. What is more, it is viewed as being undemocratic. It is an ethic of kings in an age of parliaments. For his part, Charles Taylor argues that the modern notion of ‘dignity’ ought to replace ‘honour’ in contemporary democratic society. He argues that honour differs from dignity in that honour is what only exceptional men achieve, whereas dignity can be ascribed to all. It is the importance of the assertion of the will that the two hold in common.13 Recognition is, for Taylor, absolutely vital and inescapable as a necessary constituent of identity (as we have seen – Chapter 2); and a democratic society has no business recognizing some of its citizens more than others, which is what the honour ethic at least seems to promote. Honour does have its contemporary advocates, such as Sharon Krause and Michael Walzer. Walzer has argued that honour is not incompatible at all with a modern liberal democratic society, especially if it is viewed as a quality of character. In his account of honour, it would seem not corrosive of equal recognition at all if some (albeit ﬁxed) concept of desert for honourable behaviour were to be held within a democratic society. In particular, these standards could relate to particular types of activity, such as voluntary organizations – vocational and professional associations, political parties, advocacy groups, religious groups and even families. These groups are vital sources of shared identity and by dint of their voluntary nature allow a domain appropriate for a code of honour. They are resources for inspiring honour: for motivating virtuous activity from which the whole community and indeed the political order beneﬁts.14 As Krause writes:

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 23–38. 11 Taylor, Sources of the Self, p. 20. Aristotle for his part saw honour as the goal and completion of the virtuous life: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1115b, p. 49. 12 Rousseau, as Taylor (1994: 49) explains, campaigned against honour because of its ‘striving after preferences, hence division, hence real other-dependence, and therefore the loss of the voice of nature, and consequently corruption, the forgetting of boundaries, and [ironically!] effeminacy’. Honour compromises the natural self-sufﬁciency of the individual. 13 Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, pp. 46–7; Taylor, ‘The politics of recognition’, pp. 45–51. 14 Sharon Krause, ‘The politics of distinction and disobedience: Honor and the defense of liberty in Montesquieu’, Polity, 31(3) (1999), p. 469; and Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (Oxford: Robertson, 1983). See also A. A. M. Kinneging, Aristocracy, Antiquity, & History: Classicism in Political Thought (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1997), p. 319. Kinneging argues that there is an evident continuity between the ancient and modern ideals of honour.

138

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

The power of honour lies in the fact that it is a mixed motive. It builds on the particular attachments and private desires that make us who we are and move us to act. It channels and directs personal ambitions, rather than suppressing them in the name of a comprehensive common good or a universal standpoint. Nor does it require the state to cultivate character, or submerge diverse identities into a homogeneous collective one.15 In other words, like capitalism, honour makes a virtue out of self-interest. Its advantage is chieﬂy practical, in that it appeals to what human beings are actually already like rather than what it imagines that they might become. Whatever democratic ideals a society expresses, it will ﬁnd it hard to do without some concept of honour because of the way in which human communities and individuals cling so powerfully to it. It is its appeal to natural self-interest and ambition that makes honour deeply problematic in Christian terms. If this ‘Walzer–Krause’ defence of honour reveals that honour is built upon the human need to be exalted and distinguished, then Christians, who are enjoined to ‘in humility consider others more highly than yourselves’ (th/| tapeinofrosu,nh| avllh,louj h`gou,menoi u`pere,contaj e`autw/n (Phil. 2.3)), can hardly endorse it as a personal aim. One might point also to the condemnation of evriqei/ai (‘selﬁsh ambition’) in two of the most signiﬁcant passages of paraenesis in the NT, Gal. 5.14 and Jas 3.14-16. Towards God, and within the new community of the Spirit, Christians are to be marked by their avoidance of the élitist and meritocratic tendencies that attend the honour ethic. If anything, it is the less honourable (avtimo,tera) parts of the body that are treated with greater honour (timh.n perissote,ran) (1 Cor. 12.23). Yet – and this is where the power of this accusation against the martyr has its force – it is certainly the case that there has been a long history of offering baptism to the ethics of honour. Does not the NT itself offer the suggestion that some individuals are worthy of particular honour? Does not Paul command ‘honour to whom honour is due’ in Rom. 13.7? Within the church itself, does not 1 Tim. 5.17 describe the elders as deserving of a diplh/j timh/j (‘double honour’)? The early Christian martyrologies conspicuously utilize the vocabulary of honour. They are full of military imagery: in the arena, the martyrs become soldiers of Christ, ﬁghting a battle against the enemy, and so on.16 The voluntaristic aspect is also emphasized: it is important to the martyrologists to show that the martyr chooses to die for Christ. The honour of the martyr is intelligible in the pagan context as a demonstration of free volition. A ﬁne example is the celebrated ‘Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas’, which tells of the martyrdoms of the young mother and recent convert Vibia Perpetua and her companions in Carthage. The text purports to include a record of Perpetua’s visions from her own hand. In one of these visions she sees herself ‘changed into a man’17 and prepared for gladiatorial combat with a mysterious Egyptian 15 Krause, ‘The politics of distinction and disobedience’, p. 499. 16 They have an ample store of military imagery applied in this way in the NT, especially in the book of Revelation. 17 ‘The martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas’, X, in Musurillo (2000: 119).

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

139

opponent whom she ﬁnally understands to be the Devil himself. The imagery of the vision and the language of ‘ﬁghting’ activate the discourse of military honour. When at the gate of the arena the group are being forced to don pagan garments, Perpetua resists, saying: we came to this issue of our own free will [Latin, sponte], that our liberty might not be violated; therefore we pledged our lives, that we might do no such thing: this was our pact with you.18 Perpetua understands the necessity of the martyrs demonstrating to all the freedom of their choice to die. Finally, as she faces her male opponent in the arena, the narrator records that she herself guided to her throat the wavering hand of the young untried gladiator. Perhaps, so great a woman, who was feared by the unclean spirit, could not otherwise be slain except as she willed.19 Perpetua, like a defeated gladiator attempting to regain his honour through offering up his throat, proves herself more manful than her executioner. She has to show him – the professional killer – how to kill her. As in other martyr narratives, the death that the persecutors have planned for the martyrs goes embarrassingly awry. Just as noble suicide takes the initiative out of the hands of the enemy by an exercise of will, the martyr only dies because he or she ﬁnally wills it so.20 Like a gladiator, Perpetua’s confrontation with the ignominy of public death is transformed into a story of glory and honour by her resolute attitude. For Christian theologians of the pre-Constantinian period there was apologetic value in a favourable comparison of the Christian martyrs to similar ﬁgures of Classical legend and history. Though the point was to show the superiority of the Christian examples, the rhetoric had power on account of the similar ﬁeld of discourse that could be used to describe both the honourable pagan and honourable Christian death. Tertullian, Clement, Origen and Augustine were happy to acknowledge pagan examples of ‘good death’ in their respective discussions of Christian martyrdom. Clement, who is positively disposed towards the pagan philosophers, draws on references from Heraclitus and Plato in which the noble sacriﬁce of pagan warriors is lauded.21 Furthermore, he lists a number of dramatic examples of pagan rectitude in the face of pain.22 For Clement, ‘self-control is common to all human beings who have made choice of it’.23 Origen acknowledges that there are many who have

18 19 20 21

Ibid., XVIII, p. 127. Ibid.,, XXI, p. 131. Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, I, p. 41. Clement of Alexandria, ‘Stromateis’, IV.7, in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, The Fathers of the 2nd Century (ed. Arthur Cleveland; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887b), pp. 416–17. 22 Ibid., IV.8, p. 419. 23 Ibid., p. 420.

140

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

fought and died for temperance, fortitude, prudence and even justice. Further, he asks, ‘[W]hat dead person could be more deserving of praise than he who of his own choice elected to die for his religion?’24 Even Tertullian, most hostile of the three to pagan thinking, could cite a long list of remarkable pagan deaths in urging Christian martyrs to the same.25 Augustine cites the self-sacriﬁcial deeds of many noble heroes, while arguing that Christian martyrs surpassed them in virtue and number.26 The language of honour and glory, together with the insistence on the free willing of the martyr in his or her death, was deﬁnitely a part of early martyrological practice. Christian martyrdoms were construed as honourable deaths comparable to the deaths of the great military heroes of Greece and Rome. The martyrs, no less than the pagan heroes, showed themselves volitionally unhampered by their persecutors. There is, then, apparently a deep ambivalence at the heart of the Christian description of the good: on the one hand, pride and honour are condemned; on the other, they are inevitably embraced and celebrated. In fact, martyrdom itself becomes part of the problem because it is so heroic, and recorded by martyrologists in such heroic terms. At best this is a tension. On a more harsh reading, this becomes a deep moral and personal incoherence – which is Thomas’s experience at this point – encouraging in disciples the very thing that, it appears, will undermine them to the core. ii. Heavenly rewards On the other hand: if he is to leave aside notions of honour in an earthly sense, Thomas is reminded of the heavenly reward that is his to look forward to if he proceeds boldly to a martyr’s death: more than adequate compensation for the momentary afﬂictions he is about to undergo. The notion of a heavenly reward for the martyr would seem to be necessary part of any theology of martyrdom: it represents a promise of divine vindication, and offers a motive for such apparently counter-intuitive action. a. EXCURSUS: Martyrdom in Islam and heavenly rewards It is certainly worth noting – given the inter-religious context of contemporary discussions of martyrdom – the very strong emphasis on heavenly rewards and honour in the Islamic construal of martyrdom.27 The classic Qur’anic text associated with the martyr’s reward is surah 3.169–70: ‘And do not think of those who have been killed in the way of Allah as dead; they are rather living with their Lord, well-provided for. Rejoicing in what their Lord has given them of His bounty, and they rejoice for those who stayed behind and did not join them, knowing that they have nothing to fear and that they shall not grieve.’28 Though the blessings are not described here, the life promised

24 Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, XX, p. 56. 25 ‘To the martyrs’, IV, in Tertullian, The Writings of Tertullianus, p. 4. For Tertullian’s use of military imagery see (for example) his ‘Apology’, L, ibid., p. 139. 26 Augustine, City of God, V.18, p. 212. 27 The following comments are offered with due reserve by this author in recognition of the complexity and diversity of Islamic theology and tradition. 28 Quoted in David Cook, Martyrdom in Islam (Themes in Islamic History; Cambridge:

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

141

to the martyr, or to the one killed in jihad, is presented not to urge further acts of martyrdom but rather to comfort the living. In the Qur’an itself, there is no sense in which the martyr is singled out for special heavenly treatment. However, in the traditional writings, the hadith, the situation is completely transformed. The ﬁgure of the martyr becomes one who is carefully described as set apart from the common mass of Muslims. The rewards are described in much greater detail. What David Cook describes as ‘probably the most frequently cited tradition listing these rewards’29 describes the food and drink of paradise reserved for the martyrs in the presence of Allah. In particular, there is a strong sexual theme associated with martyrdom. Much controversy surrounds this material of course, but the sexual imagery is undoubtedly present. Cook writes: ‘[T]he rewards for the martyr described by the Muslim jihad literature are very lurid . . . no one who reads the jihad and martyrdom literature can avoid the frequent and graphic descriptions of the sexual delights of paradise. Although it is impossible to be certain, the fact that this material is so well attested and descriptive suggests that along with the spiritual aspects of being a martyr, there was a strong sexual pull as well.’30 It becomes more the case in the traditional material that these rewards are used more to entice other Muslims to follow the example of the martyrs so rewarded in addition to offering comfort for those who remain. The promise of heavenly reward has long been used as a consolation for the faithful in the Christian tradition. For example, in the evidently popular though non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter, the sumptuousness of heaven as a place in which those who were persecuted dwell with Moses, Elias and all the company of the saints contrasts with the fate of their persecutors, who are led to the tortures of hell.31 In Origen’s Exhortation to Martyrdom, the author encourages young Ambrose and Protoctetus by reminding them of the promises of heavenly reward in the NT. In this beautifully crafted passage, he manages to cite nearly all the relevant texts from the Pauline epistles: if strangers to the language of the holy Scriptures should hold us in contempt or disparage us as either impious or fools, let us remember that the ‘hope upon hope’ to be given us in ‘yet a little while’ will be given ‘by the contempt of lips, through another tongue’. And who would not welcome ‘afﬂiction upon afﬂiction’ that he might immediately also welcome ‘hope upon hope’? He will consider with Paul ‘that the sufferings of this present time’ with which, as it were, we purchase blessedness ‘are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us’ from God (Rom. 8.18). The truth of this judgment is apparent because ‘this light momentary afﬂiction’ (2 Cor. 4.17) both is and is said to be ‘light’ for those not burdened by present hardships, since it is quite outweighed by the greater and heavier ‘weight of glory’ it is ‘preparing for us’ (2 Cor. 4.17). Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 31. 29 Ibid., p. 37. 30 Ibid. 31 See Michael P. Jensen, ‘The genesis of hell: Eternal torment in the consciousness of early Christianity’, Reformed Theological Review, 65(3) (2006), pp. 132–48.

142

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

It is the imbalance in favour of the promised heavenly reward that makes the present strife bearable. Further, Origen hints that the endurance of these trials in fact earns the bestowal of God’s generous gifts: This will happen if, when our persecutors wish to weigh down our souls, as it were, we turn our governing mind from our sufferings and look not at the present sufferings but at the prizes kept for athletes who by their endurance of these tests compete according the rules in Christ by the grace of God (cf. 2 Tim. 2.5). He multiplies His beneﬁts and gives as much beyond what the toils of the contestant deserve as it is right for Him to give as the God who does not quibble about triﬂes and who in His muniﬁcence knows how to increase His gifts to those who have demonstrated they love Him with all their soul by despising so far as they are able their earthen vessel.32 Origen also dwells on those words of Jesus which promise heavenly rewards in exchange for earthly renunciations: Mt. 5.10-12, for example, and the promise of a hundredfold return (Mt. 19.27-9). As in the Islamic texts, the beauty of the rhetoric has a mimetic role – it is meant to be an enticement to think on the heavenly reward amidst the troubles of this life. What begins as a word of comfort to those who are under the pressure of persecution and possible death, or to those who have lost someone in the arena, becomes, under less pressured conditions, not merely an encouragement to endure but a motivation to seek out a martyr’s death in order somehow to guarantee God’s approval. If the promise of vindication and reward comes so surely to those who ﬁnd themselves under trial, then it would follow that one ought to seek out trials, or even perhaps provoke them if necessary. This was, in fact, exactly what happened in the ﬁrst centuries of the Christian era, and it was a problem that Augustine encountered (as we have seen – Chapter 5). Yet, to be fair, this is only the consequence of the notion of heavenly rewards gone awry. The notion of heavenly rewards – as we have seen, deeply embedded in the Christian Scriptures and the subsequent tradition – is problematic not just because of its problematic effects. In the ﬁrst place, if renunciation of life and its pleasures and comforts is motivated by expectation that this very act of renunciation will bring as a certainty eternal life and heavenly bliss, is it not then the case that the act is really a form of self-interest? And further, is it not afﬁrming the paradigm of rewards that it seems at ﬁrst to reject? Secondly, we can see here that this desire for a heavenly prize can certainly mean that the martyr dies in a way which denies or diminishes the goodness of the created order – including the other people in it. This was certainly a feature of Origen’s construal of martyrdom. It is hard to see how martyrdom is a genuinely loving act in this case. A third difﬁculty is perhaps even more serious: the one who wills for himself to become a bloody martyr becomes his own judge; or, at least, attempts to force God’s hand, to trigger divine approval as an automatic right. The one who designates himself

32 Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, pp. 41–2.

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

143

‘martyr’ is presumably conscious of imitating Christ in his death; and yet this martyr presumes that his own death secures the merit, at least for himself, that only Christ’s death secures for any human person. All three of these problems are, at base, evidence for the accusation levelled against martyrs of all faiths that the apparent denial of the self is really a complete fabrication. This applies to the having of martyrs too: the church that designates and then celebrates martyrs is with not much subtlety proclaiming its own blessedness, its own God-favouredness above the blessedness of others, even of other churches. It is not incidental that the cult of the martyrs sprang up in the fourth and ﬁfth centuries, as the various sees of the empire jockeyed for position. The keeping of the relics of the martyrs and the veneration of their tombs and shrines threatened also to subvert the power of their witness to the work of Christ. Once more, we see here the temptation of supplanting the divine judgement. In sum: we can see on the one hand that honour (in an earthly sense), despite its defenders, is not for Christians an acceptable way to motivate an individual to act virtuously for the beneﬁt of others. On the other hand, if Thomas shuns all earthly honour and pursues instead the heavenly reward – as he certainly is invited to do by a strand within the Christian tradition – he risks calling down on himself the charge of spiritual self-interest. Thomas is caught, unable to self-justify. In what follows, I shall address ﬁrst the matter of earthly honour (in Honour and fame and the verdict of history) before turning to the problem of heavenly rewards (in The self-proclaimed martyr: forcing God’s hand).

D

Honour, glory and martyrdom

i. Honour and fame and the verdict of history Does anything distinguish the Christian use of the honour ethic from its pagan ancestor? Could Eliot’s Archbishop Thomas ﬁttingly give in to this temptation-to-glory given the prominence of the honour ethic in the early theology of martyrdom? Is martyrdom not, in fact, a choice for honour and glory and an exercise of the will in the teeth of violent opposition? The Acta Martyrum and the ﬁrst theologians of martyrdom in fact used the honour ethic to demonstrate that the idea of honour had been transformed. Martyrdom involves a reconstrual of the honour ethic in three important ways: volition is described in terms of the obedience of the will; the language of honour is directed to God; and the resurrection of the body replaces the memorialization of the dead. First, the will of the martyr, though free, is an obedient and dutiful will. Despite all the similarities drawn with honourable pagan death, suicide was never given as an option for the Christian martyr nor gloriﬁed by martyrologists.33 In addition, despite the fact that there were clearly many Christians willing to seek or even provoke martyrdom, this ‘voluntary’ martyrdom was condemned successively by (among others) Clement, Origen, Lactantius, 33 For example, see Augustine’s extended discussion of suicide in Augustine, City of God, I.17-27, pp. 27–39.

144

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Cyprian and the Council of Elvira.34 Clearly, in the Christian construal of ‘good death’, the freedom of the will was not an absolute consideration. The Christian was not given a free hand against herself.35 That is, the martyr does exercise her will in isolation, but she does so in free obedience to the will of God. Polycarp’s martyrologist wrote: Blessed and noble are all martyrdoms that happen according to the will of God. For we should act with discretion leaving the power over all events to God.36 Polycarp displays an almost paradigmatic attitude in this comment. He is neither fatalistically resigned to his violent death nor hopelessly optimistic about avoiding it. He can ‘act with discretion’ by exercising his own judgement without claiming a mastery of events that is only a divine property. The narrative describes him ﬂeeing to avoid capture more than once, but then accepting his trial, and martyrdom when it comes. What matters to him is the ultimacy of the divine power in contrast to the powers of Caesar and the Evil One. The same attitude to willing can be seen in Perpetua’s martyrdom: the particularly emotive aspects of her story – including the touching references to her nursing her baby and her father’s pleas to her to think of her life – give emphasis to her having to overcome in her choosing for martyrdom these ‘natural’ calls on her life in the name of her new identity. She says to her pagan father: Do you see this vessel for instance lying here, waterpot or whatever it may be? . . . Can it be called by any other name that what it is? . . . So also I cannot call myself anything else than what I am, a Christian.37

34 ‘The heads of the churches, sensibly enough, forbade voluntary martyrdom again and again, and were inclined to refuse these zealots the very name martyr’ (G. E. M. de Sainte Croix, ‘Why were the early Christians persecuted?’, Past and Present, 26 (1963), pp. 21–2). De Sainte Croix is convinced that voluntary martyrdoms were an extensive phenomenon. Agreeing with the extent of voluntary martyrdom, Paul Middleton has more recently argued that this was not its deviant form. Rather, what he calls ‘radical’ martyrdom was a vigorous enactment of Christian discipleship widespread in the period up to the Decian persecution, and only suppressed by the authorities at a later date. (Paul Middleton, Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conﬂict in Early Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2006).) This raises the question of whether an authoritative theological judgement could be made as to the validity of such actions by Christian leaders. Apparently, the ‘heads of the churches’ thought it was behaviour worth rebuking as inauthentically Christian. 35 Augustine took great pains to argue that there was not to be an exception for those women who were raped and subsequently took their own lives in order to prove their virtue (following the example of the pagan heroine Lucretia). He makes a strong case against this option as fundamentally unchristian: the body cannot be held responsible for giving consent without the will. Killing the innocent is always wrong, even when it is self-murder that is in view. (Augustine, City of God, I.19, 20, pp. 28–9.) 36 ‘The martyrdom of Polycarp’, II, in Musurillo (2000: 3). 37 ‘The martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas’, III, in Musurillo (2000: 109).

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

145

Her choice is made freely, but it is still inescapable because it is true to her Christian self. Her will is bound by her baptismal oath.38 For the pagan, honour came through free and active exercise of self-assertion. For the Christian, though the language of soldierly action was used, the gestures that this described were entirely of a different order. No swords were taken up, not even against the self. Suicide was not a Christian option because the nature of the action itself was an assertion of self over against the enemy. Martyrdom was different: where the noble soldier was responding to remorseless fate, the Christian was entrusting him- or herself to the benevolent providence of God himself. Straw calls this a ‘realignment of agency’:39 the martyr does not seize his own will back from fate, but rather offers his will to God’s greater purpose and power. They believe that even the blows of their persecutors did not come down on their backs outside the providence of God. The martyr’s model in this exercise of will (as we saw in Chapter 5) was the Christ of Gethsemane who aligned his will to the will of his Father.40 Not that the disciple simply repeats Christ’s laying down of his will and goes forward to her own death; the Christian is not called merely to a discrete repetition of Christ’s act, but to stand with Christ in his act. This was a scene in which the disgrace of the disciples in ﬁrst falling asleep and then leaving Jesus to die alone was remembered alongside the honourable determination of Jesus to face his death. As readers of the gospels, martyrs have the opportunity now to remember Jesus’s injunction to ‘keep watch41 and pray’ (grhgorei/te kai. proseu,cesqe (Mt. 26.41)).42 In other passages, Matthew presents grhgorei/te in an eschatological context: it is the wise virgins who are vigilant, awaiting the appearance of the bridegroom, for example (Mt. 25.1ff). But here in the garden, the call to watchfulness includes not only readiness for the coming of the bridegroom, but preparedness to stand alongside Christ in his suffering.43 Watching may take the form of suffering and death. This is something that resembles what it is to, as Bonhoeffer put it, . . . throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, 38 This, too, is Origen’s logic: ‘This we must know also that we have received the so-called covenants from God in virtue of agreements we made when we accepted the Christian way of life. Amongst these agreements which we made with God was the observance of the entire pattern of living set out in the Gospel’ (Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, XII, p. 49). 39 Straw, ‘A very special death’, p. 42. 40 The same laying down of the will is noted by Brad S. Gregory, a historian of the martyrs of a different era: ‘[T]he voluntary nature of martyrdom was profoundly paradoxical: the martyr’s agency depended upon relinquishing control, their strength upon a naked admission of their utter impotence and total dependence on God’ (Gregory, 1999: 132). 41 Or perhaps ‘stay awake’. 42 Of Perpetua and her friends it was written that they rejoiced that they had won ‘some share in the sufferings of their Lord’ (‘The martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas’, XVII, in Musurillo (2000: 125)). 43 Stockton makes the same observation regarding Mark’s version. See Ian Stockton, ‘Advent and Gethsemane: Mark’s call to watch’, New Blackfriars, 84(994) (2003), pp. 571–6 (574).

146

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

not our own sufferings but those of God in the world – watching with Christ in Gethsemane. That, I think, is faith; that is metanoia; and that is how one becomes a man and a Christian.44 What Bonhoeffer saw is that the disciples of Jesus are not called to will a separate suffering and dying of their own. Rather, they are only to keep watch with Christ, and so perhaps to share in his death. Secondly: as a corollary of the obedient will, it becomes clear that, though the language of honour is used in speaking of martyrs, it is used in terms of honouring and glorifying God. The martyr seeks not to preserve her own honour, but to be seen as honouring the God to whom she is bound. Such honour as she does accrue is not sought for its own sake but is caught as an overspill from the glory given to God in heaven by her death.45 The honour that the martyr receives is not in an exercise of what free will remains, but in joining her will to the will of God, and so praising and honouring God himself. The reversal of the honour/shame dynamic is generated from the passion narratives and the manner in which they are read and enacted in the lives of the apostles, especially Paul. Mark’s account of the passion of Jesus, for example, emphasizes in detail the shameful aspects of the story (rather than the physical suffering, for example). So even the vile Barabbas is preferred by the crowd to Jesus (Mk 15.6-15). The soldiers are seen mocking Jesus and with heavy sarcasm proclaiming him ‘King of the Jews’ (Mk 15.16-20). They pay him mock homage and give him the pretend trappings of royalty. As Jesus hangs from the cross under the sign ~O basileu.j tw/n VIoudai,wn, he is further subject to the scofﬁng of the two robbers and of the religious leaders (Mk 15.25-30). Jesus dies in apparent disgrace. The point of view of the narrator, of course, is that these attempts to subject Jesus to shame result in him being honoured: the proclamation ‘[T]he King of the Jews’ is, for Mark, ironically true. This disgrace is in fact a scene of honour. Reading Jesus’s cruciﬁxion in this way is signiﬁcant especially for Paul in his Corinthian correspondence because he confronts there a Christianity tempted to a form of spiritual triumphalism. He ﬁrst emphasizes the shameful aspects of the cross in contrast to the more glamorous alternatives being offered the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1-2). For him, ‘boasting’ (to. kau,chma) is only possible if it is not a self-gloriﬁcation (~O kaucw,menoj evn kuri,w| kauca,sqw (1 Cor. 1.31)). His own ministry takes the same pattern, as he sees it: his theme 44 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (ed. Eberhard Bethge; London: SCM Press, 1999), p. 370. 45 Jürgen Moltmann describes the gloriﬁcation of God not merely in terms of the self-gloriﬁcation of a narcissistic deity, or as the result (in Hegelian terms) of his self-realization through the process of history, but more as the overspill [my term] of his divine life into the creation. The language of to. plh,rwma (‘the fullness’) of God, in Jn 1.16, Eph. 3.19 and elsewhere reﬂects this idea, as does the remarkable promise of God being pa,nta evn pa/sin (‘all in all’) in 1 Cor. 15.28. As Moltmann puts it, ‘The fullness of God is the rapturous fullness of the divine life; a life that communicates itself with inexhaustible creativity . . . The fullness of God is radiant light, light reﬂected in the thousand brilliant colours of created things’ (Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (London: SCM Press, 1996) p. 336).

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

147

is that his own role is merely as a ‘servant of Christ’ and that he ought to be regarded as such (see 1 Cor. 4.1). That is not to say that he eschews all the authority and respect that comes with this designation; it is rather that whatever signiﬁcance he does have is not self-originated or self-declared, and therefore not grounds for his own boasting. So, in 1 Cor. 4.1-21, he dramatizes the situation by casting the apostolic band as a group of prisoners condemned to die in the arena, with the whole universe looking on at the spectacle (qe,atron). They are the ‘world’s refuse’ (pa,ntwn peri,yhma e[wj a;rti (1 Cor. 4.13)) and utterly contemptible. He heaps contempt on his own head, it seems, in order to stress the honour/shame reversal that lies at the heart of his theology of the cross. Paul’s reversal depends on a reversal of the ordinary order of things rooted in the cross of Jesus. The signiﬁcance of this pattern for Paul is evidenced by his return to it in 2 Cor. 6.4-10. Paul’s concern is that in pursuit of his own honour he may in fact be deﬂecting honour due to God alone. In fact, God’s choice of the lowly things and the despised things was precisely in order to increase his own glory, in which the lowly and despised then share. Ignatius of Antioch was pursuing just this line of thought – with a little (characteristic) overstatement – when he wrote to the Romans: ‘[I] shall be a convincing Christian only when the world sees me no more.’46 The martyr’s path is glorious only because it is an imitation of the Christ who redeemed humanity. But at least some of the early martyrologists are at pains to show that the honour does not detract from Christ’s gloriﬁcation: on the contrary, it exalts him all the more. The martyrs of Vienne and Lyons were described as imitating and emulating Christ so completely that Though they had reached such a height of glory and had borne witness not once nor twice but often, and had been brought back alive from the beasts bearing about them burns and weals and wounds, they neither proclaimed themselves to be martyrs, nor suffered us to address them by that name, but, if ever any one of us by letter or by word of mouth called them martyrs, they rebuked him sharply. For they gladly yielded the title of Martyr to Christ.47 The title ‘Martyr’ itself is held only as it derives from the glorious ﬁrst martyr. In this very deﬂection of praise to Christ the narrator beholds their ‘nobleness’.48 In a passage from De Civitate Dei, Augustine manages to interweave both a surprisingly positive appreciation of the great deeds of the Roman heroes on behalf of their earthly city and a demonstration of the superiority of Christian

46 Ignatius of Antioch, ‘Epistle to the Romans’, III.ii, in Roberts and Donaldson, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 210–11. We should also not forget Jesus’s critique of public good works in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7). He was highly critical of the performance of almsgiving and religious fervour in the public eye because of the corrupting effect this had on the intentions of the performer. A great public display of virtue and religious devotion was, on the contrary, probably an indication of some level of insincerity. 47 ‘The letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne’, II.ii–iii, in Musurillo (2000: 83). 48 Ibid., IV, p. 87.

148

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

martyrs who died for the city in heaven.49 Honour and glory are the cruces. Ancient Rome had indeed waxed great under the providential hand of God, because the moral character of the Romans of old had been kept in check by a passionate desire for glory.50 This desire had disciplined the Romans in their quest for, ﬁrst, liberty and then empire, and led to all the undoubtedly great deeds of the past. Honour had to be acquired by virtuous means, but it was only a handful of great men, ‘good in their way’,51 who had grasped this and so preserved the Roman state. The decline was already underway by the time of the late Republic. Love of praise in and of itself Augustine views as a vice, though it may restrain greater wickedness; this view was also held by Cicero and expressed by Horace.52 The path of honour and praise was as good as pagans without the Holy Spirit could do. The greatness of Rome was the reward bestowed by Providence for the honourable and self-sacriﬁcial labour of many great Romans. They worked for earthly honour and power and glory, and this is what they indeed achieved. But ultimately the lust for glory is a vice to be purged from the human soul, though it is a temptation even for the most godly.53 The apostles were the great examples of those who eschewed human recognition in their desire to preach Christ even though they were held in utter detestation by those to whom they preached. They followed Christ’s precept in Mt. 5.16: ‘[L]et your works shine in men’s sight, so that they may see your acts of goodness, and glorify your Father, who is in Heaven.’54 The Christian martyrs, for their part, carried on the honourable tradition: The martyrs followed in the steps of the apostles. They did not inﬂict suffering on themselves, but they endured what was inﬂicted on them; and in so doing they surpass the Scaevolas, the Curtii, and the Decii by their true virtue, springing from true devotion, and by the countless multitude. These Roman heroes belonged to an earthly city, and the aim set before them, in all their acts of duty for her, was the safety of their country, and a kingdom not in heaven, but in earth; not in life eternal, but in the process where the dying pass away and are succeeded by those who will die in their turn. What else was there for them to love save glory? For, through glory, they desired to have a kind of life after death on the lips of those who praised them.55 The difference between the martyrs and the great heroes of Rome was not their bravery or their suffering, nor even the greatness of their virtue per se. It was the goal of their suffering, the object of their devotion and the reward for which they worked that made the difference. Indeed, Augustine presents

49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Augustine, City of God, V.xii–xxi, pp. 196–216. Ibid., V.xii, p. 216. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., V.xiv, p. 203. Ibid. Ibid.

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

149

in colourful detail the noble deeds of the Romans as an example for those whose desire is the Eternal City (i.e. Christians)56 – but part of his intention in drawing the comparison is to remind Christians that they have nothing to boast in. The Roman conquerors endured much hardship with great discipline and fortitude. The glory of the Earthly City was their just reward. But this ought to suppress Christian pride, because the Eternal City is of an entirely different nature, in which human praises have no importance. We should not seek earthly glory for what is in fact heavenly virtue. In considering what the pagans have done, the holy martyrs have no cause for boasting, as though they have done anything worthy of participation in that country where there is eternal and genuine felicity, if they have struggled in the faith of charity and the charity of faith, to the extent of shedding their blood – loving not only their brothers, for whom their blood was shed, but, in obedience to the commandment, loving even their enemies, by whom it was shed.57 The Christian martyrs are superior, not because they ought to rank alongside the heroes of old in suffering and courage (though they may indeed display these), but because their true virtue with its true devotion had the true God as its object: no one can have true virtue without true piety, that is without the true worship of the true God; and that the virtue which is employed in the service of human glory is not true virtue.58 As Augustine explains, it is not earthly honour that the Christian seeks; rather, in his pursuit of the Eternal City for its own sake, honour overﬂows. The martyrs are indeed to be memorialized and honoured in thanks to and for the greater glory of the God who made them his witnesses.59 Third, and this perhaps Tertullian grasped better than anybody: whereas the Romans had only statues to memorialize the honourable dead, Christians looked forward to resurrection bodies – glorious and honourable bodies, radiant with the reﬂected glory of God (1 Cor. 15).60 Through obedience they passed glory on to God; from God glory was reﬂected back to them. Like athletes they underwent physical training, but in order to win an a;fqarton ste,fanon (‘imperishable crown’ (1 Cor. 9.25)). As Tertullian wrote, addressing his pagan contemporaries with characteristic vigour: . . . you cast statues in honour of persons such as these, and you put

56 57 58 59 60

Ibid., V.xvi, p. 205. Ibid., V.xviii, p. 209. Ibid., V.xix, p. 212. Ibid., VIII.xxvii, p. 340. Origen, for example, spoke instead of the liberation of the soul and its progress through greater knowledge of the Logos. (Origen, Against Celsus (trans. Frederick Crombie; Ante-Nicene Christian Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1878), pp. 176–8.)

150

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

inscriptions upon images, and cut out epitaphs on tombs, that their names may never perish. Insofar as you can by your monuments, you yourselves afford a sort of resurrection to the dead. Yet he who expects the true resurrection from God, is insane, if for God he suffers! But go zealously on, good presidents, you will stand higher with the people if you sacriﬁce the Christians at their wish, kill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice is the proof that we are innocent.61 The statues were a kind of resurrection, but a poor copy of the true one. The Christians had a completely different understanding of death and how it might be overcome.62 The Christian who died willingly and the Roman hero who died similarly had very different ends in view. This meant that the meaning of the suffering and dying itself was different.63 Rather than ﬁghting bravely to the end with sword in hand as the noble hero had done, the Christian’s weapon of resistance was suffering in and of itself. Further, whereas the noble warrior rescued his honour (and Rome’s) by the manner of his death, his death was still a defeat, not a victory. The martyr, on the other hand, ‘overcame the world not by resisting but by dying’, as Augustine put it using the vocabulary of the book of Revelation.64 Again, there is a Christological signiﬁcance to this interpretation of dying: Christ’s sufferings were themselves the means of his victory over sin and the Evil One. His resurrection signalled the divine vindication of his struggle. For Augustine, the resurrection of the dead was, in fact, the primary truth testiﬁed to by the martyrs in their dying: [A]mong all the truths they speak this is the most important: that Christ rose from the dead and ﬁrst displayed the immortality of the resurrection in his own body, and promised that it would come to us at the beginning of the new age or (which is the same) at the end of this world.65 The resurrection of the dead was not merely then the hope of the martyrs: it was the inner meaning of their dying. There is, however, an objection that arises at this point: if the true martyr eschews earthly glory and honour, why is it that the Christians venerate them?66 Why is it that Thomas can imagine the pilgrims queuing outside his 61 ‘Apology’, L, in Tertullian, The Writings of Tertullianus, p. 139. 62 Historian Carole Straw (2001: 41) writes: ‘Romans sacriﬁced their lives to win honor, immortal fame, and the prosperity of their earthly community. In the Christian’s eyes, this was a sorry substitute for the true glory of eternal life and the beatitude of the transcendent city of God.’ 63 Taylor (1989b: 218–19) describes how Christianity in this way is not ‘Stoicism by other means’. 64 Augustine, City of God, XXII.ix, p. 1047. Tertullian commented: ‘. . . we conquer in dying; we go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued’ (‘Apology’, L, Tertullian, The Writings of Tertullianus, p. 139). 65 Ibid., XXII.x, p. 1048. 66 In the third, fourth and ﬁfth centuries there ﬂourished on an amazing scale the practice of revering the relics and shrines of the martyrs. The care of the dead was a visible

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

151

shrine? Is there not a double standard at work in this – in that honour is given to the martyrs in precisely the manner they died renouncing? Will this not encourage possible future martyrs to consider their earthly glory – bringing about Thomas’s temptation, in fact? Augustine’s defence of the veneration of the martyrs is on the grounds that they are not in themselves gods.67 This is not, then, the same as the pagan cult of the dead. Rather, in the acts of veneration at the martyrs’ shrines, thanks is offered to God for their witness. In other words, the martyrs are accorded honour in a mediating role, as a way of honouring God, who worked in them. If this is not an altogether convincing explanation (the acts of adoration at the shrines of the martyrs described by Augustine are separated from the worship of the dead merely by a hair’s breadth), then at least Augustine has put his ﬁnger on a problem for martyrdom as a renunciation of earthly honour. If martyrdom is to be true to itself as ‘witness’, then the martyrologist who preserves and transmits the story of the martyrdom is essential to the function of that witness. And yet he or she must do so without creating an independently functioning cult of the martyr’s fame that might reverse the transformation of the honour ethic deeply encoded in the act of martyrdom. This, of course, was not always – and is not always – achieved. Augustine is essentially correct: martyrs are to be honoured not for their noble deeds as they stand on their own terms, but for what God has done in them.68

and shocking demonstration to the pagan world of Christian belief. Traditionally, historians have accounted for this as an adoption by Christians of pagan practices. Addressing this phenomenon, Peter Brown (1981: 31) writes: ‘we must remember that the Christian church had risen to prominence largely because its central ritual practices and its increasingly centralised organisation and ﬁnancial administration presented the pagan world with an ideal community that had claimed to modify, to redirect, and even to delimit the bonds of the kin. The church was an artiﬁcial kin group. Its members were expected to project onto the new community a fair measure of the sense of solidarity, of the loyalties, and of the obligations that had previously been directed to the physical family. Nowhere was this made more plain than in the care of the dead.’ Christians began to have their own cemeteries, and to note carefully the anniversaries of the deaths of martyrs and bishops. By the time of the Constantinian turn, with the growth in Christian belief among the wealthy élites, this meant the appearance en masse of endowed shrines and cemeteries all over the empire. As Brown (1981: 48) writes: ‘What we have seen is not the growth of new beliefs within the Christian communities, but the restructuring of old beliefs in such a way as to allow them to carry a far heavier charge of public meaning.’ The continuity was not with pagan popular religion, but in fact with Christian belief of the previous eras. This was not merely a feature of popular religion either, but was encouraged and sponsored by the lay and clerical élites. Noticeably, the reverence for the martyrs outlasted the persecutions which made them; the churches were insistent that this was a self-identifying practice of utter necessity for who they were as a group. 67 Augustine, City of God, VIII.xvii, p. 323. 68 In NT terms, to give honour to human beings acting in their capacity as God’s agents is not problematic at all – whether that be to the emperor (1 Pet. 2.17) or to a parent (Eph. 6.2) or to an ofﬁce-bearer in the church (1 Tim. 5.17). This principle is legitimately extended to martyrs.

152

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

ii. The self-proclaimed martyr: forcing God’s hand In this section we turn to consider the matter of heavenly rewards. Does the offer of heavenly rewards corrupt the idea of martyrdom, and so prove the Christian concept of selfhood to be incoherent after all? In a letter to Eberhard Bethge written in July 1944, Dietrich Bonhoeffer remembered a conversation with ‘a young French pastor’ (identiﬁed by the editor as Jean Lasserre):

He said he would like to become a saint (and I think it’s quite likely that he did become one). At the time I was very impressed, but I disagreed with him, and said, in effect, that I should like to learn to have faith. For a long time I didn’t realise the depth of the contrast.69 Bonhoeffer’s intuition is that intending ‘to become a saint’ is not the way to become one.70 Even though desiring the honour of heaven appears to be a way to surmount the lust for earthly glory, is it not merely a displacement of the same desire? Eliot’s Thomas is not swayed by the promise of earthly honour, appealing though it is. Far dearer to his heart is the promise of heavenly glory. This temptation introduces a complex problem for Eliot and indeed for the whole theological tradition: what place does the heavenly prize have in the motivation of the holy to serve God? Does the offer of a heavenly reward or a martyr’s crown corrupt the pursuit of true sanctity? The question is most troublesome: the very idea of martyrdom threatens to collapse under its weight – and with it Christian identity. Is the heavenly city merely the earthly city on a larger scale? Is the desire for a higher place in heaven, which Origen among others certainly believed would be bestowed on the martyrs,71 any better than a desire for earthly glory? Thomas discovers himself in the untenable situation of wanting that for which the desiring makes the having apparently impossible.72 Is some form of what has been known as ‘Quietism’ the only way forward? The controversy over Quietism in late-seventeenth-century France brought just this dilemma to the fore. The impulse of the movement was certainly not new: Meister Eckhardt had been promulgating its main features over 400 years earlier. Essentially, Quietism taught that any action motivated by self-interest to any degree was offensive to God. To achieve the purity of love characteristic of a saint, one must utterly divest oneself of self-interest – even to the extent of renouncing interest in salvation itself (and thus, like Bonhoeffer, renouncing the desire to become a saint). As the Quietist mystic Madame Guyon wrote:

69 Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 369. 70 His bracketed comment is perhaps to be read as not wishing to appear malignant about Lasserre. 71 Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, L, p. 79. 72 In his study of martyrdom, Balthasar (1994: 36) makes a comment that in one sense encapsulates Thomas’s predicament: ‘Man is capable of misusing and abusing everything for his own selﬁsh ends, even the invitation to sacriﬁce his life for the sake of that love from which faith springs.’ Could even the pursuit of martyrdom turn out to be perverse? Certainly, this is what the modern world (Salman Rushdie being our example) has suspected. Who, then, can be saved?

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

153

‘[W]e must suppress all desire . . . even the desire for the joys of Paradise.’73 Her ecclesiastical advocate, Bishop François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon, defended this ideal in more academic terms in his Explication des Maximes des Saints, arguing that, for a few especially gifted saints, there was the possibility to achieve a pure or disinterested love of God. Pressed by his adversary and fellow bishop Jean-Bénigne Bossuet, Fénelon conceded that the saint might continue to hope, but argued that this was simply because this is commanded by God. Rightly, Bossuet could see that his opponent was stretching: this was no hope worthy of the name, just as Fénelon’s ‘pure love’ was mechanistic and inert, and barely recognizable as a species of love at all.74 Quite apart from the problem of the overwhelming scriptural testimony to heavenly rewards which it is apparently right to desire, the Quietist alternative foundered on the rocks of its own logic – not least because, in making a nothing of the self, it made the value of self-sacriﬁce questionable. What of this ‘overwhelming scriptural testimony’? The desire for heavenly glory is what the brothers Zebedee, James and John bring to Jesus in Mk 10.35-45. The story seems to sit as a counterpoint to the promise of eternal life as an afﬁrmation of the disciples in Mk 10.29-31. The approach of the brothers in the ﬁrst place is crass in its attempt to elicit a blank cheque from the Messiah: (‘we want you to do for us whatever we ask’ (Mk 10.35)). Their request is not a small thing either, as it turns out: to be seated in the places of honour next to the exalted Son in his heavenly session (Mk 10.37). They wish to usurp the highest positions in order that they might bask in the glory of the Christ. The abruptness of the request should not prevent us from seeing it as a genuine desire for closer proximity to holiness and a desire to be seen as pleasing in the sight of God. They are willing to take their discipleship of Christ to the very throne-room of heaven. Jesus’s reply reminds them of the true demands of that discipleship if it is to be true discipleship of the true Christ. Their request betrays in fact their ignorance of the path he is about to tread (‘you do not know what you are asking’ (Mk 10.38)). The real proposition for the follower of Jesus Christ is the one he next puts to them: ‘[C]an you drink the cup I drink or be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with?’ (Mk 10.38).75 The ‘cup’, in Mark’s symbolic world the cup of divine judgement from Isa. 51.17, 22, returns as a recognizable image in Gethsemane when Jesus cries out ‘[T]ake this cup from me’ (Mk 14.36). Can the brothers join with Jesus in the God-forsakenness of the execution of the Christ? Likewise, the baptismal image points forward to the bloody conclusion of Jesus’s earthly career.76 Origen for one reads

73 Quoted in Kenneth E. Kirk, The Vision of God: The Christian Doctrine of the Summum Bonum (Bampton Lectures; London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1931), p. 454. 74 Oliver O’Donovan, The Ways of Judgment (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 300–301. The same criticism could be levelled against Nygren’s thesis about the (alleged) distinction between agape and eros. (Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros (London: SPCK, 1982).) 75 Hovey, To Share in the Body, p. 100. 76 In Rom. 6.3 Paul likewise links the symbolism of baptism to death.

154

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

both images as referring to martyrdom:77 his reading is conﬁrmed by Jesus’s prophecy about the brothers (Mk 10.39). However, Origen curiously seems to imply that a promise is given here to those who would pursue martyrdom of a greater reward, as if Jesus’s question (‘can you . . .?’) is a condition that the brothers can choose to meet. He overlooks the brothers’ inability to realize the full meaning of their own question, and the rebuff strongly implied in ‘to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant’ (Mk 10.40). The request for the seats of privilege is not denied outright: the brothers will learn the real meaning of following Jesus in due course. God’s hand will not be forced in the name of serving him. ‘The ﬁrst shall be last, the last ﬁrst’ does not mean that being the last ought to be pursued as a way of coming ﬁrst – as if this were the point of Jesus’s reversal. Rather, it is a promise of vindication given to those who would follow him in the giving of life in service (Mk 10.45). In Rom. 2.6-10, on the other hand, Paul does use do,xa and timh. as representative of those virtues that God promises to reward. Those who ‘by persistence in doing good seek glory and honour and immortality’ (toi/j me.n kaqV u`pomonh.n e;rgou avgaqou/ do,xan kai. timh.n kai. avfqarsi,an zhtou/sin (Rom. 2.7)) are the ones who are rewarded with eternal life. Could Paul here be endorsing the brothers’ desire to share more highly in Christ’s glory at the heavenly banquet table; or Thomas’s desire to be a martyr exalted in heaven? It is necessary to consider the contrast between the two options that are balanced here. The path to destruction is ‘for those who are self-seeking’ (toi/j de. evx evriqei,aj); so seeking glory and honour in this context cannot indicate pursuing one’s own (even heavenly) exaltation. In Rom. 1.18ff, it is the problem of human beings not honouring the divine nature that is in view. The exchange of the ‘glory of the immortal God’ (th.n do,xan tou/ avfqa,rtou qeou/) for that of idols signiﬁes that they are exchanging the worship of the glory of the immortal God for a poor alternative. Therefore Paul’s seeking glory, honour and immortality actually indicates the divine glory, honour and immortality and the possibility of sharing in them; it thus sits less uncomfortably with Jesus’s warnings about the pursuit of heavenly glory than might have ﬁrst appeared. In the martyrologies and the writings of theologians of martyrdom, the tendency is to make the talk of the heavenly prize into an alternative honour to be desired for itself. Origen is representative: he conceives of Christian discipleship as being akin to a contract, with baptism as its seal.78 Taking Christ’s words ‘what shall a man give in exchange for th.n yuch.n auvtou/ (his life)’, remembered in Mk 8.36, he maps out an entire metaphor of exchange such that God is bound to grant to the martyr ‘a special and greater fullness of beatitude’.79 From this framework he goes on to explain how the rich martyr, in giving up so much more, is deserving of a higher place in heaven than the poor martyr. With the guarantee of heavenly reward Origen seeks to exhort his disciples to take the course of martyrdom. 77 Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, XXVII, p. 68. Tertullian also speaks of the ‘baptism of blood’ (‘On Baptism’, XVI, in Tertullian, The Writings of Tertullianus, p. 250). 78 Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, XII, p. 49. 79 Ibid., XIV, p. 51.

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

155

Augustine is more subtle. For him the difference between the pagan desire for glory in the earthly city and the Christian desire for the Eternal City lies in the difference between the things that are desired in both cases. However, it is not sufﬁcient to say that they are both desired with different objects, because in Augustine’s scheme the nature of the thing desired does affect the manner of its desiring.80 Whereas the earthly city is built by self-love, the Heavenly City is created by the love of God ‘carried as far as contempt of self’.81 For Augustine, love of God absorbs and reorders all other types of love, so that the one who desires the Heavenly City is driven by the vision of the holy God. For him: The earthly [city] lifts up its head in its own glory, the Heavenly City says to its God: ‘My glory; you lift up my head’ (Ps. 3.3).82 God himself is the glory of the Eternal City; it is in the longing for and submitting to God that glory and honour are returned to the Christian. Under this way of conceiving it, the true martyr does not pursue the golden crown or the higher position in heaven; rather, she testiﬁes merely to her love of God, and seeks for him to be honoured – and in doing so, herself shares in glory. It still might be possible, however, to see in ‘the love of God’ the operation of a system of exchange. Calvin, like Luther at pains to show that he agrees with Augustine (especially his latter writings), at the same time clariﬁes and even extends his thought in terms of the Reformation doctrine of justiﬁcation by faith.83 He interprets the promises of heavenly rewards as a promise that comes after the ‘free covenant of his mercy’ – sealed not by meritorious works but indeed by grace through faith. The assurance given to believers that their tribulations are not in vain is given in addition to the strength to endure. Without the free bestowal of grace upon the ungodly in Christ, there is no ‘crown of righteousness’ (2 Tim. 4.8). As Calvin writes: ‘the righteousness of good works depends upon the fact that God by pardon approves them’.84 The emphasis lies on the self-consistency of God rather than on the rendering of a due payment to some worthy deed. For the purposes of the present discussion, this is signiﬁcant because of the motivation implied: the language of heavenly rewards is not used in order to induce a self-interested desire for that heavenly reward; rather, heavenly rewards are a reminder of the faithfulness of God to his own promises. The honour is a recognition of that which God himself does in the life of the believer. By placing the desire for heavenly glory before Thomas, Eliot has been able to highlight a facet of the tradition of martyrdom that has not always had a satisfactory resolution. The talk of a contracted heavenly reward was

80 This thought was repeated by Bossuet against Fénelon, and by C. S. Lewis in his ‘Weight of Glory’ sermon. (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, and Other Addresses (ed. Walter Hooper; New York: Macmillan, rev. and expanded edn, 1980) pp. 25–46.) 81 Augustine, City of God, XIV.xxviii, p. 593. 82 Ibid. 83 Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justiﬁcation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1998), pp. 222–6. 84 Calvin, Institutes, III.xviii.5, p. 827.

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

156

part of the appalling rhetoric of the September 11th terrorists (and, presciently, in Rushdie’s descriptions of religious fanaticism); but it has also been present in the Christian tradition, as I have here acknowledged. However, the martyr who thinks to force God’s hand or to take heaven by storm does not witness truly to Christ; and neither do his martyrologists. Self-narration may well mean self-justiﬁcation. The promises of heavenly reward in Scripture are offered as a comforting vindication for those who have suffered for following Christ, not as a wage arranged by means of a contract that God must honour. Eliot’s Thomas does not overcome this temptation. He has no riposte to it that will clear his name and vindicate him before people or before God. As his sermon shows, however, he ﬁnds hope not in his clear conscience, but in the victory of Christ.

E

The renunciation of honour

Thomas is tempted to pursue earthly honour as a means to realizing his selfhood, even though it is as a spiritual hero – to narrate himself into the role of saint. He considers the pleasing possibility of his own posthumous cult of spiritual celebrity. However, renouncing this is not enough: he is further tempted to pursue heavenly glory as a satisfaction for the demands of his own ego. In both instances, the problem lies with the corrupting motivation – it is a temptation to do ‘the right deed for the wrong reason’. The Scriptures and the tradition have a strong critique of earthly honour as a motive in terms of pride. Following the model of Christ, the martyrs (and their martyrologists) co-opted and displaced the discourse of honour – not merely as the Stoics had, but in a uniquely Christian way. They exercised their volition in obedience; they saw themselves as channels for divine glory; and they hoped in union with Christ for the resurrection of the body as a substitute for posthumous renown. But was the motivation really any different if a heavenly reward was on offer? Was dying for heavenly recognition really just another species of self-regard? Is it demanding of God that he give me what I clearly deserve – presenting God with his I.O.U.? It certainly can be. This was a tricky question for the tradition. However, drawing on the teachings of Jesus and of Augustine we have been able to see how the desire for the Eternal City differs in kind from the desire for earthly glory. The self that has delight in the glory and honour of God – a delight expressed sublimely in martyrdom – is in fact restored to selfhood in communion with the divine, and shares in the divine splendour. As Eliot has Thomas say in his sermon: ‘[A] martyrdom is always the design of God . . .’ (Interlude, 65). By not grasping at human honour, the Christian martyr exposes the triviality and changeability of human honouring. The value of human recognition in the form of fame and honour is relativized by the willing embrace of an apparently shameful death. The exercise of will at the heart of honour is thrown into stark relief by the martyr’s choice to will as God wills. The martyr, with a shocking clarity, allows himself to be made available to God’s signiﬁcation rather than keep himself for the assertion of his own meaning. Christ’s resurrection body – characterized by its glory – is given as a promise of that divine

THE FOURTH TEMPTATION

157

signiﬁcation. If men and women have glory and honour it is not because they have grasped it for themselves but because they have been crowned from above (Ps. 8; Heb. 2.7); and in fact, as the Epistle to the Hebrews argues, it is Christ alone who as Son of Man has won this crown (Heb. 2.10). The martyr has seen this, and by sharing Christ’s disgrace also shares his crown. That earthly honour is relativized in this way means that things that are good to do may still be good even if they are not recognized. In fact, giving honour to those who do good in public may corrupt the motives of those who do so – even advocates of the honour ethic recognize this. The public/private dichotomy is also in this way relativized, because a truly honourable deed may be perfectly anonymous but still honoured because it gives itself to the judgement of God ﬁrst and foremost. The individual of true honour may be partially or even completely unrecognized in a community. In fact, the martyr’s witness – which mediates Christ’s – is that the truly honourable person may be shamed and condemned by human society.

This page intentionally left blank

7

‘Who killed the Archbishop?’ Martyrdom, temptation and providence

A

Introduction

I began by postulating martyrdom as the outward enactment, in the lives of a few, of the identity of every Christian person. In Balthasar’s expression, it is ‘the external representation of the inner reality’ of the Christian life.1 The Christian martyr, as we have seen, is a self who eschews to the end an ordinary deﬁnition of the safety and security needed for a person to ﬂourish; will not, as a citizen, accept the ultimate hegemony of the ruler; refuses to use action, even in the name of an ideal, as a means to self-deﬁnition; and turns away from honour and even from a certain construal of heavenly rewards. In each instance the movement is away from a possible identity that is apparently concrete, recognizable and achievable, and towards the future that belongs to divine agency alone. The martyr resists the possible selves that may emerge from taking up the various offers and accepts identity only as God himself chooses to give it. I have argued (recalling the ﬁrst of the three ‘questions of selfhood’) that, as our readings of Scripture have shown, the narrative of the self given in Christian martyrdom is bound up with the narrative of the divine redemption of human beings in Jesus Christ. The notion of ‘martyrdom’ recalls a particular narrative shape which is a verdict on a sequence of events. As with tragedy, it offers an answer to the question ‘what was the meaning of this death?’ To label a sequence of events a ‘martyrdom’ indicates that the events are related in a certain way – that they form a mythos, or a plot, which gives rise to a discernible pattern with its own theme. That there is an extensive tradition of martyrological narratives, from the ancient martyr-acts (as collected by Musurillo2) through to John Foxe’s 1 Balthasar, The Moment of Christian Witness, p. 22. 2 Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. 159

160

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Actes and Monuments (ﬁrst published 1563) and beyond, indicates that this pattern has been long recognized and indeed, is deeply embedded in the cultural consciousness of what once was Christendom.3 As has been shown by the analysis thus far, temptation and its renunciation on the one hand, and providence on the other, have particular prominence in the mythos of martyrdom. It is the task of this chapter to inquire into the relationship between these themes and their martyrological conﬁguration.4 From the outset, I have sought to expound selfhood and identity with reference to narrative (see Chapter 1). What is the narrative logic that requires temptation in order to establish martyrdom? ‘Narrative logic’ indicates the ‘patterns of order which are proper to story rather than to discursive reasoning’.5 Stories are composed of actions and events ordered to one another by reference to chronological sequence. To view the story as a unity, each subsequent event must be intelligible in relation to what preceded it. It can be surprising, or the intelligibility may not be obvious immediately – but the events must show some kind of ﬁtness. Paul Ricoeur’s way of putting this is to say that narrative conclusions must be acceptable rather than deducible. They follow a ‘particular directedness’ that propels them forward to a conclusion – though, of course, we need to follow it to the conclusion because it is only from that point of view that we can ultimately judge the acceptability of the sequence.6 That is not to say that there is not a ‘logic’ to the way stories proceed, of course. Rather, it is almost a truism to say that successful narratives possess an explanatory power that resonates – profoundly so – with the human experience of events. Ricoeur goes on to develop his analysis of the logic of narratives by claiming that all narratives combine two aspects, one of which is chronological and one of which is non-chronological. The ﬁrst he calls the ‘episodic dimension’, by which he means to indicate the way in which narratives throw up the question of ‘and then’? – that is, ‘what happened next’? Simultaneously, however, telling a story is also about construing ‘signiﬁcant wholes out of scattered events’, attempting to grasp the series of events as a unity – its ‘conﬁgurational dimen-

3 For a discussion of martyr plays as a distinct genre in their own right, see Paul Hernadi, ‘Modern martyr plays beyond genre’, Neohelicon, 13(1) (1986), pp. 141–62. 4 In the 1940s, Jewish scholar H. A. Fischel outlined in chronological order a table of 24 events that (in his opinion) characterized the typical Jewish/Christian martyr’s story (‘a stereotyped scheme’). He included, for example, ‘The great publicity of the trial’ (no. 3) and ‘He remains victorious in the last debate’ (no. 11). There is no place for a temptation scene at all in his scheme: the closest is probably no. 2, ‘The martyr refuses to ﬂee.’ Certainly, the voluntary nature of the martyrdom is generally established in these early narratives – but it is usually depicted as an external deliberation rather than an internal one. Fischel’s aim was to compare rather than contrast Jewish and Christian martyrdoms, so he was rather inattentive to disparities between the two. (H. A. Fischel, ‘Martyr and prophet’, Jewish Quarterly Review, 37 (1946–47), pp. 265–80.) 5 Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), p. 223. (Originally PhD dissertation, Emory University, 1981.) 6 Paul Ricoeur, ‘The narrative function’, Semeia, 13 (1978), pp. 177–202 (182).

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

161

sion’, as Ricoeur labels it.7 Ricoeur observes, then, that narratives combine both sequence and pattern – though it must be said that these two elements exist somewhat in tension with each other: ‘this structure is so paradoxical that every narrative may be seen as a competition between its episodic and its conﬁgurational dimensions, between its sequence and its pattern’.8 Part of Ricoeur’s point is that the patterning of the events is already always an interpretation of them. It already ascribes signiﬁcance to the particular form of events. In order to address the acceptability of temptation within the narrative logic of martyrdom, I shall ﬁrst examine Eliot’s dramatic presentation of temptation in a martyrological setting; secondly, I shall make temptation, or rather peirasmo,j, the object of a theological investigation and show in this its link to the mythos of martyrdom; and thirdly, I shall seek to relate testing/trial to the Christian doctrine of providence, showing how belief in the providentia dei is the ground by which renunciation and resistance of peirasmo,j – even to the point of death – is made possible. I shall show how Christ, who as the second Adam underwent peirasmo,j, both carries out the providential design and shows his disciples how to cling to it, even in the face of their own terrible peirasmoi..

B

Who killed the Archbishop?

In the ﬁnal scene of Murder in the Cathedral, the dramatist has the Four Knights, who have just completed their gruesome assassination of Archbishop Thomas in his own Cathedral, advance to the front of the stage and address the audience. It is a startling moment, the shift in tone indicated by a marked change in the style of the language. The use of this dramatic device invites the process of a judgement ‘in time’ as, with no small irony, the four assassins offer their rationalizations for their actions, in plain ignoble prose. They make ﬂattering appeal to the tradition of ‘Trial by Jury’ and to the ‘fair play’ of the English audience; no doubt, we feel ourselves privileged as judges over the action we have just witnessed (notwithstanding that the execution has already been carried out). It is an invitation to judge.9 The explanations of the Knights are also accusations against Thomas, which means that this is in effect a trial scene after the fact. There are three chief counts against him. The ﬁrst two are intertwined: ﬁrst, that he was anti-order and justice, and so, secondly, that he was disloyal. The Second Knight makes the case that the King’s aim all along was to restore the good order of the state against the continual disruption of local interests. The ﬁnal step in his programme would have been ‘a union of spiritual and temporal administration, under the central government’ (II.503-4), with Thomas as Chancellor and Archbishop combining the two in the one person. Rather 7 Ibid., pp. 183–4. 8 Ibid., p. 184. 9 In Ricoeur’s terms, there is an invitation to consider the conﬁgurational dimension of the drama.

162

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

than co-operating with this high-minded plan (which need not be read with any cynicism), Thomas ‘afﬁrmed immediately that there was a higher order’ and that ‘the two orders were incompatible’ (II.512-5). In other words, he was disloyal to the harmonious vision of the King, and – inexplicably and irrationally – pitted the spiritual against the temporal. This was despite the fact that it was the King who appointed him Archbishop in the ﬁrst place. In fact, he was guilty of asserting ecclesiastical power as another form of power over against the royal rule. His open hostility to temporal rule was coupled with an ostentatious (and possibly hypocritical) asceticism, suggestively and needlessly critical of the behaviour of the ruling group. His behaviour, therefore, was disloyal and disorderly. It was counter to the welfare of the kingdom – uncitizenly, one might say.10 The third accusation pertains to Thomas’s psychological state. The Fourth Knight, picking up on the comment about his ‘ostentatious asceticism’, declares Thomas ‘a monster of egotism’ (II.558-9). Thomas’s problem was ultimately his self-obsession, to the point of mania. He had prophesied his own martyrdom: was it any wonder that he became a provocateur? Ignoring the real and pressing needs of his own congregation, he had determined on a death by martyrdom as a means of conﬁrming to himself his own spiritual greatness. He deliberately courted death by returning from France when he knew there was danger. He could have chosen the path of escape; he could have kept the doors to the cathedral closed. The Fourth Knight thus appeals to the audience to deliver a verdict of ‘Suicide while of Unsound Mind’ (II.574-5). His death was an act of unfathomable and pointless self-destruction, serving only Thomas’s overweening pride. ‘Who killed the Archbishop?’ – he did it himself. If, then, the first two accusations are that the martyr is willfully and self-servingly subversive of good order and justice, and of holding to a dualism that makes for war between spiritual and temporal orders, the third charge is that he has been overtaken by a psychotic pride to the point at which even the self is desecrated. The martyr is guilty of pointless inﬂammation of conﬂict, and of courting the very violence with which he is killed. Why is the charge so serious? As Lacey Baldwin Smith puts it (echoing Rushdie): The possibility that martyrdom might be only faintly disguised suicide on the part of emotionally disturbed people who were determined, consciously or unconsciously, to end their own lives is a deeply worrisome 10 Eliot was no doubt well aware of the Hildebrandian challenge to Carolingian models of Christian kingship as a privileged patronage of the church. What became known as the ‘investiture controversy’ of the later eleventh century inﬂicted scars on the political face of central Europe that did not fade for several centuries. In the period 1103 to 1107, Henry I of England forged his own compromise solution to problems with Pope Paschal II; but clearly the old tensions were never far from the surface, as the career of Thomas Becket shows, and as becomes most evident in the Henrician Reformation of the 1530s. The historical Becket was most certainly guided by Hildebrandian aims when he was in ofﬁce at Canterbury. For his part, Henry II attempted to reassert his predecessor’s hard-won rights – and the duties of his ecclesiastical subjects – in declaring the 16 ‘Constitutions of Clarendon’ in 1164. After this point, the confrontation with the Archbishop was inevitable. (Barlow, Thomas Becket, pp. 100–1.)

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

163

proposition, because it strikes at the teleological roots of a performance that for many Christians is regarded as being providential.11 If Thomas was not a fool, he was certainly a traitor. Indeed, the whole concept of martyrdom is threatened with collapse if he was merely a ‘faintly disguised suicide’ – it becomes, rather than the design of God, the concocted performance of an individual of dubious sanity. Baldwin Smith perceptively recognizes what is at issue – if the martyr is deluded or malicious, then certainly there is no providential vindication for him. His witness to the sovereignty of God is a sham.12 Eliot thus admits into evidence the quite plausible counter-witness of the knights, and they appear to have the last say. However, the play closes not here, but with the song of the Chorus celebrating the entry of Thomas into glory. And at this point another kind of invitation is issued – an invitation to thankfulness and repentance: Forgive us, O Lord, we acknowledge ourselves as type of the common man, Of the men and women who shut the door and sit by the ﬁre; (II.638-9) The audience are pointed to their own complicity in the shedding of blood through their tolerance of injustice and their apathetic acceptance of the status quo; they are invited to contemplate the example of Thomas in his submission to the will, and the love, of God – his acceptance of providence and his renunciation of his temptations.13 Another possible conﬁguration of the narrative – another judgement, no less – is now on view. How does Eliot prevent this ﬁnal hymning of Thomas the martyr from coming across as an assertion of one interpretation of Thomas – a more sentimental and perhaps less plausible one – over and against the other accounts 11 L. B. Smith, Fools, Martyrs, Traitors, p. 17. 12 The uncanny and uncomfortable resemblance of the Knights’ self-justifying speeches to those of the Nuremberg defendants (especially Hermann Göring) was not lost on post-war audiences of Mord im Dom, the German version of Murder in the Cathedral. (Däumer, ‘Blood and witness’, pp. 92–3.) 13 Robin Grove certainly is not convinced by Thomas: ‘. . . he sweeps forward through temptations progressively more inward, until the victory is gained . . . We know, because he says so. Or maybe, the doubt springs up, he has conformed God to his will, and chosen martyrdom vaingloriously after all. There is simply no way anyone could tell. Whatever Becket’s motives, an audience can never be sure of them; only God can see his heart . . . Having directed us towards a light into which we cannot peer, the drama leaves us simultaneously exalted (God has given us ‘another Saint in Canterbury’) and pleasurably skeptical (the pious have been taken in by another holy fraud . . .).’ Perhaps the Knights are right after all? Whatever the case, Grove’s insight is that the true action of the drama, which is the nature of Thomas’s ﬁnal choice and the divine verdict on it, has become ‘inaccessible to view’; and the spectators themselves become the subject of judgement by the play. Grove seems to ﬁnd this turn to the audience quite unpleasant. (Robin Grove, ‘Pereira and after: The cures of Eliot’s theatre’, in Anthony David Moody (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to T. S. Eliot (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 158–75 (170).)

164

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

we have just heard? The accusations of the Knights are certainly credible given what we have been told of Thomas’s character and his former life, and especially his tendency to an overweening pride ‘always feeding upon his own virtues’ (I.118). Isn’t this really quite a glib ﬁnale, ignoring the very real questions of the Knights? It is the permission granted to the audience to witness Thomas’s encounter with the four Tempters in the ﬁrst act that makes all the difference. If we had not seen him at his ‘strife with shadows’, then his vindication would make no dramatic or theological sense. His innocence in his own slaughter must be known to us for us to be able to read the Knights’ accusations for the self-justiﬁcations that they are. Thus, by making the central part of his ﬁrst act the scene of Thomas’s temptation, Eliot suggests that temptation – or, rather, its renunciation – is a crucial martyrological theme. This series of episodes is indispensable for making sense of the conﬁgurational dimension. Prior to the entrance of the Archbishop, the chatter of the Priests and the Chorus highlights their own misgivings about Thomas’s return to England from France. The First Priest in particular recalls his well-known ﬂaws: I saw him as Chancellor, ﬂattered by the King. Liked or feared by courtiers, in their overbearing fashion, Despised and despising, always isolated, Never one among them, always insecure; His pride always feeding upon his own virtues, Pride drawing sustenance from impartiality, Pride drawing sustenance from generosity, Loathing power given by temporal devolution, Wishing subjection to God alone. (I.114-22) Thomas is prone to pride, a sin that lies alongside great virtues.14 To the audience it is suggested that this central ﬁgure of the drama is extremely vulnerable, whatever his strengths; that in fact his strengths – the qualities that have made him justly celebrated among his people – might in the end be his undoing. This suggestion, which ﬂowers into the Knight’s accusation (namely, that perhaps the return of the Archbishop was not as nobly motivated as it seemed, that perhaps his egotism was driving him to seek a showdown with the King, rather than his pastoral devotion to his ﬂock) is only answered by the dramatic encounter of Thomas with his Tempters. That is: if Thomas is to be declared a true martyr – indeed, if the concept of martyrdom itself is to have any coherence – then the drama must show that he did not die from his own pride or folly, even though he was, to be sure, proud and foolish. When the Archbishop ﬁnally enters, with his speech about the ‘pattern’ and the ‘wheel’, it is clear that he knows the highly charged political situation into which he has stepped. There is no question of his ignorance or naïvety here: 14 The historical Thomas certainly knew this susceptibility, a fact which his mediaeval hagiographers struggled to conceal. As Barlow (1986: 44) puts it, in his term as Chancellor Thomas ‘gloried in all the pomps of the world’.

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

165

he is well aware of the murderous intent of his enemies. For now he is granted a delay, as he explains to the First Priest (I.246-9); and so . . . the substance of our ﬁrst act Will be shadows, and the strife with shadows. Heavier the interval than the consummation. All things prepare the event. Watch. (I. 251-4) ‘Strife with shadows’ is Thomas’s description of his temptation. The ghostliness of the tempters indicates to the audience that they come from within him – this is to be a moment of strife within himself, in contrast to his more external wrestle with the King and his agents. In fact, this period of inner testing, this ‘interval’, is ‘heavier’ than the later moment of his bloody assassination will be. In other words, this temptation episode is far more a test for Thomas and in the end will reveal more about his identity than his subsequent death. His death is, in fact, given its conﬁgurational signiﬁcance as a consummation through the passage of this heavier ‘interval’. What Eliot has also hinted at is that Christian martyr-actions need to be read in deep connection with and in allusion to the gospel narratives. As we have seen, Eliot has his protagonist evoke the moment when Jesus urged his disciples to attentiveness ‘lest you fall into temptation’ in Gethsemane. Is this a moment of hubris? Isn’t it impossibly self-aggrandizing for this Archbishop-politician to cast himself in the role of Christ – and by implication his opponents in the roles of the Sanhedrin and Pilate? That is certainly a possibility that we are invited to entertain this side of the heavy ‘interval’. Whether this suspicion is unwarranted or not remains to be seen; but the suggestion is put to the audience that they ought to read these events in terms of the Christological pattern. By echoing the episodes of the gospel, the martyrologist evokes the whole Christological conﬁguration; the Christian martyr-action is, in other words, conﬁgured as an imitation of Christ. In sum: Eliot’s dramatic presentation of a martyrdom suggests that temptation is part of the narrative logic of martyrdom. The audience (or the reader) need to see in some way that the martyr is not guilty of wanton self-destruction, grandiose delusions or sabotage of the peace. Yet this is not unproblematic. What human being is truly innocent? The Christological evocations that I have already noted are a suggestion that the analysis of the signiﬁcance of temptation in martyrdom can only proceed with reference to the life and death of Christ. My next concern, then, is with an exposition of the place and meaning of temptation as it falls within the pattern of martyrdom.

C

Trials and temptations

In this section I seek to give an account of ‘temptation’ in its scriptural and theological setting. As we shall see, the discussion necessarily leads us in the direction of Christology and anthropology, and to a number of passages in which the NT offers a Christological reading of OT narratives. Bonhoeffer will once again be of assistance.

166

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

The biblical words hS’M; and peirasmo,j are translated into English as both ‘trial’ and ‘temptation’. The linguistic separation of the two concepts is a feature of later Latin translations (probatio and tentatio). Roughly speaking, a trial (probatio) is an external and public event; a temptation (tentatio) is more internal and personal. Temptation is a moment of decision for the individual prior to the public testing before the court or in the circus, an inward crisis the outward counterpart of which is the trial before the powers. It is obvious that peirasmo,j as ‘trial’ has a connection with martyrdom: ‘witness’ is itself a concept drawn from the courtroom, where an individual’s testimony is put under pressure. But does peirasmo,j as ‘temptation’ also form part of the pattern of martyrdom (as Eliot suggests it does)? For their part, the early martyr-acts do not depict the martyrs being visited in this way by diabolical visitors;15 nor do they dramatize the inner world of their protagonists in the way that the modern writer does. However, they most certainly do see the public testing of the martyr as a temptation to renounce the faith that is sent from the Devil himself. There is no doubt for them that this public scrutiny, this probatio, has a spiritual dimension. For example, in ‘The Martyrdom of Montanus and Lucius’, the ﬁrst-person narrator describes how, having remained resilient in the courtroom, he and the others were thrown in prison, to be attacked there by the Devil using the weapons of hunger and thirst.16 For his part, Origen quite explicitly links temptation with martyrdom.17 Furthermore, as has already been noted (Chapter 4), in the period after the persecutions the example of the martyrs facing probatio was used in meeting the challenges of tentatio. The original unity of the concept of hS’M;/peirasmo,j lies, as Niels Henrik Gregersen observes, in three aspects.18 First, the notion of peirasmo,j does not merely refer to the external circumstances alone, nor to a possibly vulnerable psychological state, but to the presence of both intertwined. Secondly, peirasmo,j appears when human beings are placed on the defensive – that is, at a moment in which we are about to lose control over events, when ‘reality has approached us, before we are approaching reality’.19 Thirdly, the language of peirasmo,j presupposes ‘an open-ended predicament’. In temptation and in 15 Though the martyr-acts are replete with reports of visions (see for example ‘The martyrdom of Saints Marian and James’, VI, in Musurillo (2000: 201), and ‘The martyrdom of Montanus and Lucius’, VII (ibid., p. 219), these are usually held to be from a divine rather than from a diabolical source, and serve the purpose of strengthening the martyr for the peirasmo,j ahead. 16 ‘The martyrdom of Montanus and Lucius’, VII (ibid., pp. 218–19). To this example many others could be added. Of Fructuosus and his friends it is said that ‘they trod underfoot the Devil’s head’, in clear allusion to the temptation narrative of Genesis 3 (‘The martyrdom of Fructuosus and his companions’, VII (ibid., p. 185)). In the actions of the prefect who interrogated Marian and James is seen the ‘manum diabolus insatiabilem’ (‘The martyrdom of James and Marian’, III (ibid., p. 197)). 17 ‘. . . we must suppose that the present temptation [i.e. the pressure to renounce Christ or be killed] has come about as a testing and trying of our love for God’ (Origen, ‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, VI, p. 45). 18 Niels Henrik Gregersen, ‘Trial and temptation: An essay in the multiple logics of faith’, Theology Today, 57(3) (2000), pp. 325–43 (332). 19 Ibid.

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

167

trial, there is the question asked of the human subject to which he or she must respond; the assumption is that there is a freedom to respond. Taking these three facets together, peirasmo,j can only be seen as a moment of crisis for the self. It is a moment when the individual is forced to a point of decision, yet remains responsible to decide. Balthasar uses the term Ernstfall: the ‘decisive moment’ or the ‘moment of decision’.20 The threat, whatever form it takes, is against the individual and her identity, her soul and her body. The unity of the two concepts is conﬁrmed by the Epistle to the Hebrews in the context of its account of Christology. As the author interprets the life of Jesus, probatio and tentatio remain indistinct. It is hard to see to which part of the narrative of Jesus’s life the author is referring – is it his temptation in the wilderness (i.e. tentatio) or his trial before Pilate (probatio)? See, for example, Heb. 2.17-18: Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacriﬁce of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested [peirasqei,j] by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested [peirazome,noij].21 Linking suffering to temptation/testing here is probably evidence that he is talking about the ‘test’ of Gethsemane and the Passion, the suffering that comes from an external source or threat. But, interestingly, it is this suffering test that Jesus needed to endure in order to fulﬁl the purpose of the incarnation, to complete his identiﬁcation with his brethren – ‘in every respect’ – so that he could function properly as the ‘great high priest’. The effectiveness of his priesthood is dependent on his complete identiﬁcation with the people he represents in making the sacriﬁce – the peirasmo,j is, while not the whole of this identiﬁcation, the signiﬁcant last part of it. The author describes in a very elaborate way the process by which Jesus became qualiﬁed to offer the sacriﬁce of puriﬁcation. The mere fact of the birth of the Son as a human baby was not sufﬁcient to demonstrate or achieve his human perfection (telei,wsij): he had to undergo the trials and sufferings of human life and overcome them in obedient submission to the Father.22 From here the author moves on to a typological discussion of the wilderness period and the temptation at Massah, using the sonorous tones of Psalm 95 – which is itself a call to resist temptation – as his verbal map. The recipients of his letter are warned not to give in to the temptation of unbelief (Heb. 3.19) and deafness to God’s voice. Of course, the one being tested at

20 Balthasar, The Moment of Christian Witness, p. 37. 21 Where NRSV has ‘tested’, ESV (English Standard Version) prefers ‘tempted’. 22 ‘How has Christ abolished sin, banished the separation between us and God, and acquired righteousness to render God favourable and kindly towards us? To this we can in general reply that he has achieved this for us by the whole course of his obedience . . . In short, from the time when he took on the form of a servant, he began to pay the price of liberation in order to redeem us’ (Calvin, Institutes, II.xvi.5, pp. 507–8; emphasis mine).

168

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Massah was Yhwh himself: the people’s testing of him was evidence of their hard-heartedness and resulted in their inability to enter the rest of God. The recipients of Hebrews, however, have a signiﬁcant advantage in their resistance against hardness of heart: they have possession not merely of the law-giver Moses, great as a servant in God’s house, but of a high priest who is the Son of God; he is also one who has ‘in every respect’ been tempted as we are – so he is able to sumpaqh/sai (literally, ‘suffer along with’) us – so Heb. 4.14-15: Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Christ is our co-tempted; he is our fellow sufferer of trials. The anthropological conclusion that might be drawn is that, if in order to completely identify with humankind Christ had to undergo peirasmo,j, then peirasmo,j must in some sense be a human universal. Peirasmo,j, it seems, is so closely bound up with human experience, is so universally a feature of what we undergo in this life, that we are not truly represented by a saviour who has not undergone it. Who is Adam after all if he is not the one who was tempted, even before he fell? As Bonhoeffer puts it: ‘[I]f he was to help man, who is ﬂesh, he had to take upon himself the whole temptation experience of the ﬂesh.’23 So it is in the synoptic gospels: the wilderness temptation of Christ is necessarily shown to the readers so that we are in no doubt, not merely in respect of Jesus’s innocence and complete obedience, but in respect of his real humanity.24 Christology has shown us the centrality of peirasmo,j for anthropology. If a full account of this anthropology of peirasmo,j is to be given, we must return to the biblical origins of humankind – to the peirasmo,j that appeared in the primordial garden. Prior to the peirasmo,j stands God’s charge to the man: to ﬁll and till, name and tame the creation. He is to bring it to fruition. He is invited to stand as co-agent of God’s providential care of all that he has made. This is the positive aspect of God’s ﬁrst Word to his creature. It is a Word that confers honour – and with it, responsibility.25 This Word is a vocation, in other words.26 The size and scope of the calling is so enormous that Man will only 23 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Temptation (London: SCM Press, 1955), p. 16. 24 Paul in 1 Cor. 10:13 says: ‘No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man.’ Evidently there is a temptation ‘common to man’ – including Jesus of Nazareth. 25 I have already noted (see Chapter 5) Bonhoeffer’s exposition of ‘responsibility’ (Verantwortung). For Barth, the similar term Verantwortlichkeit sums up the human situation before God, who addresses us: ‘It is the idea of responsibility which gives us the most exact deﬁnition of the human situation in face of the absolute transcendence of the divine judgment. We live in responsibility, which means that our being and willing, what we do and what we do not do, is a continuous answer to the Word of God spoken to us as a command’ (Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.ii, p. 641). 26 ‘Human being as vocation’ is the suggestion made by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ‘Human being: Individual and social’, in C. E. Gunton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

169

be able to approach it in fellowship and in partnership with others of his kind (hence, the necessity for the creation of Woman). There is but one restriction: the notorious tree. The restriction stands as a reminder to the creature of his creatureliness – for Man of all creatures is most likely to forget this about himself and to believe in his own independence from God and his Word. And yet, as Bonhoeffer writes, ‘innocence means clinging to the Word of God with pure undivided hearts’.27 That is why the Tempter, when he comes, comes armed with the Word of God, and concealing his true nature.28 The beauty of the lie he tells the woman and the man is that it is not completely a lie. In fact, it is close to the truth. ‘Did God really say,’ he whispers, ‘“[Y]ou shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ (Gen. 3.1). There has been a command – and it was about trees and eating. But Eve is able to put aside this ﬁrst suggestion, for God in fact said, ‘[Y]ou shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die’ (Gen. 2.16-17); only one tree is off limits. Far greater is their freedom than their restriction. Yet the serpent says to the woman, ‘[Y]ou will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’ (Gen. 3.4-5). These are profoundly attractive – indeed, tempting – lies. They are an attack on the Word of God itself: on the very God-ness of God. Adam’s ingratitude at the extraordinary liberty in the task offered to him and his failure to imagine his task as sufﬁcient for his needs explain (but do not justify) his deafness to the voice of God, his lack of response to his call. There are, then, three identiﬁable aspects to peirasmo,j: it tempts/tests Adam in his ﬂesh, in his faith, and in his allegiance to God.29 The allure of the fruit is matched by the hunger in the ﬂesh of the man and the woman. There is a sheer disbelief in them, as they are seen to lack faith in the Word of God about himself and about them. There is also a challenge to the power and authority of God: a suggestion that his rule is not as absolute as it appears. The scent of revolution is in the air. Just as signiﬁcant for the history of human temptation is the story of the failure of Israel to heed the voice of God in the wilderness – to which I have already referred. Between them, the two stories conﬁrm that what is true for Israel is true for the human race as a whole; that what is true for the one individual is true for the many; and that the Word of God may fall on stopped-up ears even among the redeemed.30 In the Sinai covenant (Exodus 19–20) the

27 28

29 30

Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 158–88. See also Alistair I. McFadyen, The Call to Personhood: A Christian Theory of the Individual in Social Relationships (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Bonhoeffer, Temptation, p. 15. ‘The voice of the tempter does not come out of an abyss only recognized as “Hell”. It completely conceals its origin. It is suddenly near me and speaks to me . . . Indeed there is no sign of the origin of the tempter in ﬁre and brimstone. The denial of the origin belongs to the essence of the seducer’ (ibid.). Bonhoeffer (1955: 18–21) applies this triad to Jesus, but doesn’t read it back into Adam’s (and Israel’s) peirasmo,j as I have here. The singularity of Adam and Jesus, as it is given full typological play in passages like Romans 5, may lead us to say with Bonhoeffer (1955: 14) that there are only two temptations in the Bible. Unfortunately, this can only be said if the separation

170

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

dual nature of the Word of God as promise on the one side and command on the other is given dramatic theological signiﬁcance in the life and identity of Israel itself. The promise precedes and is the ground of the command; the command invites an obedience that corresponds to faith in the promise. In the wilderness, as in the garden, we see temptation (though over a series of incidents) in terms of the ﬂesh, faith and allegiance to God. The Israelites are dissatisﬁed with the provision of food; they refuse to believe in his protection of them; and they contest his absolute right to rule over them. The temptations of Jesus also occur in the wilderness and in a garden. These locations are not accidentally chosen, but indicate how Jesus is being identiﬁed with both Adam and Israel in his peirasmo,j. The importance of the wilderness temptation for the Christologies of both Matthew and Luke cannot be overstated.31 The location (e;rhmoj) and the duration (40 days and nights) evoke the Exodus period (especially in Matthew).32 But here one man goes alone in place of a whole people, ‘led by the Spirit into solitude and abandonment’.33 The wilderness is the place of the apparent absence of God, of God-forsakenness. Jesus is tempted when he is weak, lonely and hungry. Just as in paradise, the tempter offers his enticements concealed in the vocabulary of the Word of God. Following Bonhoeffer’s reading, we see that he tempts Jesus according to his ﬂesh, his faith and his allegiance to God. First, he entices the ﬂesh of Jesus: ‘if you are the Son of God . . .’ Notably, he does not make an offer of something obviously immoral, or even as obviously contrary to the command of God as the Edenic fruit. He suggests that Jesus, using his divine power, might conjure up bread from the stones, so as to quell his ﬂeshly hunger. This would be tantamount to a withdrawal from the true life of the ﬂesh in its suffering; it would a handing over of the ﬂesh to Satan. Jesus’s reply shows that even he stands under the Word of God, and that he will rely on it even in his ﬂesh. If it was not enough for Adam, it will be enough for him. Secondly, he makes a bid for Jesus to prove his Sonship by demanding a sign from God – a sign from God of his willingness to save Jesus at any time. Jesus recognizes this as a temptation to test God, as Israel did in the wilderness, not satisﬁed with what God had promised and commanded them. As Bonhoeffer puts it, ‘[F]aith which demands more than the Word of God in precept and promise, becomes a temptation of God.’34 It is a temptation to engineer providence rather than to submit to it; and its rejection shows – as Gethsemane will also show – that here is one who will indeed truly submit to the pattern of God.

31 32 33 34

of tentatio and probatio is made without an adequate recognition of their connection. The way in which the temptations of Jesus are depicted – in the gospels and in Hebrews – in terms of the Exodus period rather than the garden means that we cannot neglect this temptation of Israel in favour of the temptation of Adam. Rather, we should and can see that both temptations mutually inform each other, or are part of the same narrative logic. See Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 457ff. Luke inverts Matthew’s ordering of the second and third temptations. Bonhoeffer, Temptation, p. 17. Ibid., p. 19.

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

171

The third temptation tests Jesus’s allegiance to the Father: Satan (not this time quoting Scripture) offers the glorious kingdoms of the world; in return, Jesus must worship him. There is no third option, notably, where Jesus might rule without worship. It is either Satan, or God himself: he must choose. Can we imagine that Jesus knows that the pattern of rule will be different under Satan? There will be no costly sacriﬁce, no shameful dying – only glory and triumph. In Jesus’s riposte – ‘[A]way with you, Satan! For it is written, “Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him”’ (Mt. 4.10) – is the knowledge that service of God will cost him. Bonhoeffer observes perceptively that the temptations – of ﬂesh, of faith and of allegiance – are united in their intent to separate Jesus from the Word of God.35 Jesus does not overcome Satan and bind him by means of his strength or power or his heroism or his unbowed moral courage. He defeats him by clinging to the Word of God – to command and covenant, precept and promise. It is not that he shows himself as a moral exemplar as such: he succeeds where Adam fails because of his determination to rest only on the Word. There is in the temptations of Jesus nothing else remaining ‘except God’s Word and promise, no native strength and joy for the ﬁght against wickedness, only God’s strength and victory, which holds fast in the Word, and the Word robs Satan of his power’.36 Though the tempter suffered defeat here, it was by no means the end of his activity; nor was this victory sufﬁcient to accomplish Jesus’s work. Luke comments that the Devil avpe,sth avpV auvtou/ a;cri kairou (‘departed from him until an opportune time’ (Lk. 4.13)). There was certainly more to come. There was a second garden of testing: Gethsemane. I have already noted (Chapter 6) that there are two actions of response to testing that are foregrounded in the scene: proseu,cesqe (‘pray’) and grhgorei/te (‘watch’). Jesus prays (as I noted also in Chapter 6), in great distress and agony, even fear: we read in Mt. 26.39: And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.’ At the moment of his greatest distress, he prays to God, knowing that nothing is impossible for him, even ﬁnding some other way than to. poth,rion tou/ to. Despite this, he throws himself into the will of God. Along with watching, praying is what Jesus commands his disciples as a response to peirasmo,j:

grhgorei/te kai. proseu,cesqe( i[na mh. eivse,lqhte eivj peirasmo,n (Mt. 26.41). The i[na indicates that the watching and praying are to be the

safeguards against temptation/trial, rather than introducing the content of the prayer as such – though, of course, there are strong hints of the famous clause of the Lord’s Prayer (from Mt. 6.13).37 In the peirasmo/i of Jesus, then, it is not so much the victory of moral rectitude, or ﬁnally of one human being who 35 Ibid., p. 20. 36 Ibid., p. 20–1. 37 In Acts 20.31 and 1 Cor. 16.13 believers are also enjoined to grhgorei/te.

172

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

has developed the strength to overcome, that is observed, but rather an example of dependence on the Word of God and trust in his will. He overcomes not by being superhuman, but by being truly human. a. EXCURSUS: Irenaeus of Lyon and the temptations of Christ My reading of the salvation-historical significance of the temptations of Christ has ancient pedigree, recalling Irenaeus of Lyons’ theory of ‘recapitulation’ (anakefalaiwsij), whereby the incarnate Son victoriously retraces the phases of Adam’s life – ‘in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death’. In Irenaeus’ reading, Jesus’s fast of 40 days is actually performed in order to give the tempter a chance to attack him: he is weakened in body so that he is vulnerable in spirit. Irenaeus fondly notes the parallel between the food used in Genesis and that in the gospels: ‘The corruption of man, therefore, which occurred in paradise by both eating was done with by want of food in this world.’ Jesus meets the challenge of the Devil with the words of the law, calling on his Father’s Word as a counter-testimony. Satan (like the heretics) wraps his lies in Scripture: to answer him with Scripture is the right response, ‘showing him to be the enemy of God by the expression of his thoughts’. Using the law to conquer the Devil shows that the mistake of Adam has been undone: ‘He spurned him from Him ﬁnally as being conquered out of the law; and there was done away with that infringement of God’s commandment which had occurred in Adam, by means of the precept of the law, which the Son of man observed, who did not transgress the commandment of God.’ The Devil is exposed and defeated by means of the very law he attempts to wield. As Irenaeus writes: ‘as in the beginning he enticed man to transgress his Maker’s law, and thereby got into his power; yet his power consists in transgression and apostasy . . . so again: on the other hand, it was necessary that through man himself he should, when conquered be bound with the same chains with which he had bound man, in order that man, being set free, might return to his Lord, leaving to him those bonds by which he himself had been fettered, that is, sin’.38 The redemption of man involves the enslavement of the Devil, reversing completely the situation of Eden. Irenaeus’ account is perhaps an over-explicit account of what is only hinted at in Scripture; it has, however, the virtue of explaining the signiﬁcance of Jesus’s entire ministry rather than focusing on a particular aspect of it. If Christ has experienced his trials and temptations and overcome them, then what of the disciples of Jesus? The disciples are not spared further peirasmo/ i ; on the contrary, temptation and trial come at them with a renewed force if anything. qli/ yij is to be expected as normal; they are not to be surprised by the coming of the purw,sei pro.j peirasmo.n (‘ﬁery trial’ (1 Pet. 4.12)). The allusion to Jesus was offered in Hebrews to comfort believers who were in the midst of trials. The disciple is thrown back on the human question of the ﬂesh, faith and allegiance to God. Can he himself now 38 Irenaeus, Against the Heresies (trans. Dominic J. Unger and John J. Dillon; Ancient Christian Writers, No. 55; New York: Paulist Press, 1992), V.xxi.2.

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

173

overcome the peirasmo,j, perhaps because he looks with new eyes on the old problem? That would mean that Jesus merely exempliﬁed the right response to peirasmo,j. The testimony of the NT is otherwise: Jesus supremely and uniquely passed through this test and temptation. The disciple, who in afﬂiction may even become a martyr, does not witness to his own overcoming of peirasmo,j; rather, he points, by faith, to the victory of Christ in his ﬂesh, his faith and his allegiance to God. That he is tested and remains steadfast even to the death is a witness to Christ’s decisive defeat of the Devil – not to a fresh victory, but only to a participation in the same original victory that belongs to him through being united to Christ in the power of the Spirit. It is not a declaration of the martyr’s innocence or virtue as such, though it is a testimony to his vindication – that is, his justiﬁcation.39 The trial of Thomas is, in a sense, beside the point: it is the innocence of Jesus with Satan and before Pilate that counts, an innocence in which the martyr has a share.

D

Temptation and providentia dei

If peirasmo,j (in both its senses) is part of the narrative logic of martyrdom, in that it demonstrates the free submission of the martyr, what are the conditions which make such a concession of one’s own freedom not evidence of insanity or self-destructiveness? The martyr submits to a particular ‘horizon of signiﬁcance’ (as Taylor would put it) – the providential will as it is revealed and exempliﬁed in Christ. Thus it is no accident that the form of the martyr’s suffering is an imitation of Christ’s own passion.40 The testing of an individual – whether he or she is put under pressure by seduction or by threat of force – is a test of his or her belief in providence. How, amidst the turbulence of human existence, will the presence and the activity of God be discerned? And how will the believing individual act in response? The renunciation of temptation leading to martyrdom is the fruit of a particular account of divine providence. However, human life with its peirasmo/i is lived under conditions that appear much less than providential (in the sense

39 The NT speaks of a ‘participation in Christ’s sufferings’ – for example, see 1 Pet. 4.12 and Rom. 8.17. An intriguing comment is made by Paul in Col. 1.24: ‘I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my ﬂesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afﬂictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.’ The martyr-acts read the suffering of the martyrs in these terms: for example, in the stories of Polycarp (VII, in Musurillo (2000: 7)) and Carpus (ibid., p. 27). Calvin, hearkening back somewhat to Luther, elucidated this teaching in terms of the ‘mystical union’ of the believer with Christ. Not only is the believer declared righteous, in forensic terms; she is also now the receiver of Christ himself: ‘[N]ot only does he cleave to us by an indivisible bond of fellowship, but with a wonderful communion . . . he grows more and more into one body with us, until he becomes completely one with us’ (Calvin, Institutes, III. ii.24, pp. 570–71). 40 See my comments about typology in Chapter 3. Eliot’s theo-dramatic instinct is to position temptation and providence very prominently in the narrative logic of martyrdom. In the scene of Thomas’s temptation are repeated evocations of the divine design or pattern – ‘the wheel’, in the language of the Third Priest (I.137-9).

174

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

that Christian orthodoxy means it). There are several alternative explanations. As we have seen in Chapter 3, Nussbaum explores what existence and identity might mean under conditions in which management of luck is the dominant concern. An account could plausibly be given in which temptation/trial occurs within an apparently dualistic framework in which the tempters (and, what is more, the Tempter himself) have an unrestricted power to attack, and in which the outcome is uncertain. Or it could be said that history is under the sway of a remorseless and unyielding force whose plan and person remain entirely hidden from view. In each of these instances, a Christian martyrdom would indeed appear ludicrous. Against dualism and luck, the doctrine of providentia dei is a reminder of the overarching monotheistic structure of Christian belief; that nothing, not even the temptation, falls outside or is a convincing challenge to the sovereign design of God.41 He is the author of the narrative of history. However, the Christian doctrine of providence is not merely theistic. It gives expression to providence in Trinitarian terms.42 So, amidst the chaos of experience with all of its peirasmo/i, the martyr rests on the singularity of the Father’s providence, expressed in the supreme and effective example of the Son’s renunciation of temptation and his strength under trial to the point of death, and in the comforting presence of the Paraclete. It is in this act of reconciliation that the providence of the God ‘who was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ is revealed. The self-emptying of the Son was to the extent (and beyond) of his subjecting himself in the likeness of sinful ﬂesh to the trials and temptations of life in the world, under the auspices of the Devil. Thus, the testimony of the martyr is not merely to

41 This is something Eliot certainly perceived. Paul Hernadi (1986: 147) makes him sound rather more dualistic than he is: ‘In Eliot’s view, history is not simply the background of smartly progressive and foolishly conservative human forces, both required for the steady evolution of our species. It is, rather, the visible site of the unceasing spiritual struggle between creative, divine order and the destructive stirrings of chaos ever to be loathed and defeated.’ 42 Barth offers a strong critique of Calvin, his forebear, on precisely this score. In Calvin’s otherwise impressive chapters on providence in the Institutes (I.xvi–xviii), so Barth complains, there is scant reference to the revelation of God in Christ. Calvin (and those who followed him) works his doctrine of providence out from his doctrine of the knowledge of God – even using Jesus’s own teaching on God’s providential care, but not showing how the providence of God is chieﬂy exercised, and revealed, in the life and death of that man. This tendency was then inherited by Protestant orthodoxy: ‘It does not seem to have occurred to whole generations of Protestant theologians to ask what this lordship has to do with Jesus Christ, and the knowledge and confession of this lordship, and readiness to subject oneself to it, with faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ’ (Barth, Church Dogmatics, III.iii., pp. 30–1). The Christian belief in providence is not a belief in an absolute will or an absolute power, but in the God who exercises his will and his power (and his love) in Jesus Christ. Perhaps this is in reality not far from what Calvin meant, with his characteristic emphasis on the fatherly care of God. In turn, Barth’s description of providence could be critiqued as insufﬁciently pneumatological, as it is by Gunton. (Colin E. Gunton, The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study (Edinburgh Studies in Constructive Theology; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), pp. 179–80.)

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

175

a remote understanding of the divine mastery of events from outside, but to the loving providential action of God in Christ from within the sphere of the human. Here are the climactic events of the divine narrative, to which all other events relate. As Colin Gunton writes: A Christological structuring of divine providential action understands it in the light of the one who became human, identifying with the world’s structures in order to reshape them to their eschatological destiny.43 The divine being whose sovereignty is unchallengeable lives for a while ‘a little lower than the angels’.44 It is thus through the work of one in it that creation is brought to its fulﬁlment. This is the noetic basis on which, Christianly speaking, a belief in providence is founded. Belief in providence is not an inference from history; nor is it a claim to know the pattern of the times. It is not augury or cloud-reading. Belief in providence is not even a claim to special knowledge of the providential plan. It is merely a claim to knowledge that there is such a plan and that it has been made by one with the power and the will to accomplish it ‘for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose’ (Rom. 8.28). From the covenant history which culminates in the Son of God’s action for salvation of the world we learn of the purpose and character of God to which all other history is ordered. When Paul exclaims, at the end of his troubled and troubling discussion of the election of Israel in Romans 9–11: O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?’ ‘Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?’ For from him and through him and to him are all things. (Rom. 11.33-36) he is not expressing an apophatic despair of ever knowing the ineffable deity who must himself remain ever hidden behind a cloud of unknowing, but rather his joy in the righteous and loving character of God revealed in the gospel of his power (Rom. 1.16). Though the full plan of God is as yet concealed from view, his character has in fact been made known in the gospel of the Son. This thought is Paul’s consolation. This gospel is, however, thoroughly embedded in the history of salvation that preceded it. Prior to the NT witness to the providence of God in Christ, 43 Gunton, The Triune Creator, p. 192. In Luke’s gospel, famously, Jesus refers to the necessity – presumably the divinely ordained necessity – of certain courses of action. But the Lukan dei/ is not a fatalistic necessity. When Jesus says out loud in Lk. 9.22: Dei/ to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou polla. paqei/n (‘It is necessary for the Son of Man to suffer many things . . .’), he is describing the human need and the divine remedy; but it is a necessity to which he freely submits. 44 The otherwise helpful article by Gregersen (2000) tries to relate temptation and providence by describing ‘multiple logics of faith’ – but completely overlooks a Trinitarian and Christological description of providence. Thus he sinks into a morass of unnecessary complications.

176

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Gen. 22.1-19 tells the story to which Israel herself looked back for the revelation of ha,r”yE hw”hy> – ‘Yhwh the provider’. It was the story of Yhwh’s trial (hS’nI) of Abraham, too. At the outset, a word comes from God that makes Abraham’s experience of God to this point bafﬂing (Gen. 22.1). He cannot see the pattern of the divine plan. He cannot make sense of this command according to some rational scheme; or according to some morality which he imagines God to be subject to like everyone else; or, by dint of some hermeneutic strategy lately learned, hear something other than what he has heard. He does not even begin to doubt his own sanity. There is the semblance of cruelty in the request, even: God reminds him that he, Abraham, loves his son (Gen. 22.2). With what attitude does Abraham set out on his journey? In the other pieces we have of his story, we have presented to us a fearful doubter. In Egypt he presents his wife as his sister; in the disastrous begetting of Ishmael, he is seen (with Sarai) as attempting to foreshorten the gap between the divine promise and its realization in his life. In those tests he stumbles; here now, he silently presses on towards the mountain. He cannot see what is ahead, but rather only possesses the promises of the God who called him. As he says to Isaac, ‘God himself will provide the sacriﬁce.’ At the climax of the story, the angel stays Abraham’s hand, and the ram – a superior sacriﬁce? – is found caught in the thicket. This provision of God, of course, is not merely a result of his action as a distant supreme being – if it were, then this whole episode would certainly be an exercise in divine sadism of the hapless human subject. This is not the God that Abraham encounters here. He proceeds on the basis of the God who has previously revealed himself to him in promises, and meets at his journey’s end the ha,r”yE hw”hy>.45 Abraham receives the provision of a ram as a demonstration of God’s determination to be the Lord of the covenant with his people in their actual history.46 Jesus’s own teaching on providence in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 6.2534) is likewise not a statement about the order of things as they are, but a bold declaration about the coming of the kingdom of God.47 He urges his hearers against anxiety about material provisions, and to be comforted instead. He asks them not worry about th/| yuch/| u`mw/n (Mt. 6.25), their ‘lives’.48 The birds are well-fed; the lilies are ﬁnely dressed. In both cases this happens without the labour of those who beneﬁt. Yet: ‘[A]re you not much more valuable than they?’ (Mt. 6.26). Jesus here highlights what has traditionally been called God’s ‘general’ providence in upholding even the smallest parts of the natural world. The fact of this provision for the natural world should prompt a reassurance of the ‘special’ providence of God for his people, and an end to running like the pagans after material securities. And yet, the Sermon itself 45 The author of Hebrews conﬁgures Abraham’s trust in God’s providence in terms of the resurrection from the dead (Heb. 11.17-19). 46 See Barth, Church Dogmatics, III.iii., p. 35. 47 Ibid., II.ii, p. 695. 48 th/| yuch/| u`mw/n is translated ‘life’. Here is survival for which food is required, but also clothing as adornment. Is it possible to see yuch as indicating ‘identity’ and ‘personhood’, as well as ‘life’ in the sense of ‘existence’? Whatever the case, Jesus is turning the attention of the disciple away from the self and its needs, even its basic ones.

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

177

begins with recognition of the fraught conditions of lived experience for the people of God: mourning, persecution, being slandered and insulted, and so on (Mt. 5.11-12). Whatever is meant by the providence of God, it is not merely that his people will be well fed and beautifully clothed. There is no promise that consists in an earthly prosperity or security, which would be temporary in any case (Mt. 6.19-21). The promise in which this faith in providence rests is a promise that the kingdom of God will bring vindication – that is the implication of the maka,rioi (Mt. 5.1-12). There is an unavoidable eschatological dimension to this account of providence. Jesus recognizes that the experience of life as it is – and especially for the people of God – is not of itself reassuring without reference to the eschatological fulﬁlment of the divine promises (as we saw in Chapter 3). For her part, the disciple of Jesus has to refrain from worry, and pursue as a priority the kingdom of God. In other words, as Bonhoeffer puts it: ‘[T]he Christian lives from the times of God, and not from his own idea of life.’49 This was the lesson of Abraham, too.50 It is the same attitude that Jesus himself taught his disciples, in the Lord’s Prayer. The prayer itself is an articulation of a subjectivity experienced in medias res, but also in the hope of eschatological deliverance. It is distinguished from the verbose Gentile prayers which try to demand divine notice by sheer volume of words (Mt. 6.7). This prayer is a very different kind of speech-act. First, it addresses the one in heaven (Mt. 6.9); which is to say, it addresses the ruler of all things as he sits on his throne. This is a prayer from one who has a limited view of things to a being who sees all. It is a prayer to a known rather than to an unknown divinity, it should be noted: this prayer proceeds on the basis of the prior revelation of God’s identity, on the basis of promises he has already spoken. He can be addressed by his name because he is known and identiﬁed. Second, the primary request of the prayer (to which the others are subordinated) is that the Father would hallow his own name, and carry out his will (to. qe,lhma,) ‘as in heaven also on earth’ (w`j evn ouvranw/| kai. evpi. gh/j (Mt. 6.10)). Clearly the (earthly) perspective of the praying subject is one which observes that the divine will is not yet fulﬁlled, and the divine name not yet hallowed. The experience of the pray-er is that of not being able to see that God’s rule is everywhere enforced;51 yet there is a drawing-down into the character of God as he has revealed himself that can only be named ‘faith’. Indeed, we may go further here: the eschatological orientation of faith in the Father’s providence means that it can withstand even the threat of torture and death.52 49 Bonhoeffer, Temptation, p. 11. 50 And of many of the Psalms. For example, Ps. 31.15: yt’_To[i ^ïd>y”B. (‘[I]n your hands are my times . . .’). 51 Gregersen (2000: 341) puts it succinctly: from the point of view of the one praying, ‘[T]he world is certainly not a mirror of God’s reality’. Well, not yet. 52 William Cavanaugh addresses a similar concept with the term ‘eschatological imagination’, noting how powerful for martyrs this inward, hopeful vision is in all kinds of extreme conditions of testing: ‘The eschatological imagination sees that, although they presume to kill us, Christ has vanquished the powers of death once and for all. The eschatological imagination of martyrdom is not a vertical ascension to another place and time, a distant heaven; the movement instead brings a foretaste of heavenly

178

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

The saints of the OT could have prayed this prayer on the basis of the memory of God’s historical acts and the witness of the prophetic word. Their faith was not in a different Lord. But the NT adds to the history of God’s people the decisive appearance of the Son of God (Heb. 1.1-3; 11.39-40). In his death and resurrection, the kingdom of God was inaugurated. We have from the story of Abraham and Isaac the view of divine providence as not merely the provision of sustenance but the provision of a sacriﬁce that God himself demands of his creatures. God himself is the provider of what he requires of men and women. On the other hand, Jesus’s own teaching about the kingdom of God points to its eschatological nature. The world and its history as they are lie under the judgement of God. Its destiny, as things stand, is to be wound down, unravelled and subject to destruction. The testimony of the NT authors, on the basis of the resurrection of Christ from the dead in the power of the Spirit, is that Jesus Christ was the sacriﬁce provided by God to meet his just requirement and to reconcile fallen humankind to himself (e.g. Rom. 5.1-11). This was not decisive only for individuals, nor even merely for Israel, but indeed for the destiny of the whole created order (Col. 1.19-20; Rom. 8.19-23).53 To accept a martyr’s death in the name of the one in whom all things are reconciled to God is not, then, as astonishing as it might seem. The nonchalance with which the ﬁrst generations of martyrs are depicted as accepting their terrible fate is no doubt exaggerated; but the truth that it serves to illustrate is that for the disciple of Christ there is, in the scriptural account of providence, both a way to make sense of the persecution and no reason to fear its consequences. Not only are the martyrs recorded as entrusting themselves to the providential care of the Father in the face of demonic opposition; the very martyrdoms themselves are depicted as being (in Eliot’s words) ‘by the design of God himself’. They even understand their own suffering as under his providential hand. As the author of ‘The Martyrdom of St Polycarp’ comments: Blessed indeed and noble are all the martyrdoms that took place in accordance with God’s will. For we must devoutly assign to God a providence over them all.54 As we saw in Chapter 3, the presbyter Pionius was accused by his interrogators of foolishness, self-destruction, impiety and madness. To the question ‘[W]hich god do you worship?’ he gave this reply:

space-time to earth’ (William T. Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ (Challenges in Contemporary Theology; Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), p. 65). 53 As I have tried to demonstrate throughout (for example in Chapter 3), the theological narrative in terms of which the Christian self is shaped and Christian martyrdom makes sense is at once both an afﬁrmation of the goodness of creation and its ordering to a higher good. My eschatological and Christological description of providence shows how Christian martyrdom is rational as a preference for higher goods over lower ones in the hope that in the light of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, even the lower ones might be recovered. 54 ‘The martyrdom of Polycarp’, I, in Musurillo (2000: 3).

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

179

The God who is almighty . . . who made the heavens and the earth and things that are in them, and all of us; the God who richly furnishes us with everything, the God we know through Christ his Word.55 Pionius claims that he knows God in Christ; and in Christ he knows God the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. And for that divinity, he is prepared to die – though, as he describes it, he is ‘not rushing towards death, but towards life’.56 What we have seen in this brief discussion of providentia dei is that though temptation and testing threaten the stability and even the identity of the subject, awareness of and reliance on the providence of God are the ground that enables resistance. Providence also gives the testing its meaning qua peirasmo,j. This knowledge is not merely an abstract item of data but in fact the knowledge of the revelation and enactment of God’s providential care for his creatures in the particular history of Christ Jesus. Remarkably, the whole action of the martyrdom, from the renunciation of temptation to the suffering of a painful death, itself belongs within God’s providential action.57 The Christian doctrine of providence has an eschatological horizon. It takes the form of a longing for the kingdom of God, which means that even the threat of a bloody death does not surpass it. This is the witness of the martyr.

E

Martyrdom, temptation and providence

I shall now venture to draw together some of the themes of the discussion of temptation and providence as they relate to the martyred self. I have argued that temptation – or, more rightly, peirasmo,j – is genuinely a part of the narrative logic of martyrdom. But what does this observation itself in turn reveal? Peirasmo,j as tentatio is a given of human existence: it is Adamic. It is a feature of the primal human story, and also part of the redeemer’s experience in identifying with hapless human beings. The human situation is not ever found aside from this battle with sarx and diaboloj, a battle which

55 ‘The martyrdom of Pionius’, VIII, in Musurillo (2000: 147). Acts 4.24, on the lips of Pionius here, is by far the most cited text in Musurillo’s collection of martyr-acts. Later on in Pionius’ story (ibid., p. 157) we read: ‘“Which god do you worship?” asked Lepidus. Pionius answered: “The God who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them”. Lepidus said: “You mean, then, the one who was cruciﬁed?” “Yes”, said Pionius, “him whom God sent for the redemption of the world”.’ 56 ‘The martyrdom of Pionius’, VIII, in Musurillo (2000: 163). 57 The martyr Stephen, widely regarded as undergoing the type of martyrdom to follow, enﬂames his judges by recounting salvation-history in summary form with the shocking twist that Jesus Christ is the fulﬁlment and climax of that narrative (Acts 7). For Luke he is a model biblical-theologian, reading Israel’s past in terms of the promises and actions of Yhwh and the recalcitrance of the people. It is an interpretation of providence, in other words; and, ironically, it is this view of providence to which he witnesses that brings him into fatal conﬂict. See Pelikan, Acts, pp. 106–8.

180

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

threatens to unself the self. We do not know of a time when human subjects did not have to face these opponents.58 This leads to a problem: how does the martyr, a fellow human being, hope to be victorious in the strife? The temptation/testing of the martyr is in this sense not unusual. This situation is not the result of luck or fate. Peirasmo,j is a test of the free human response and obedience to the divine call. As such, it tests our awareness of our own existence as God’s creatures – our recognition of our maker’s voice and our responsiveness to him. It describes not the moment of that call, but our memory of the call at the moment when it appears to be gainsaid in our experience: ‘Did God really say . . .?’ The trial or temptation comes to us as a contradiction of the Word of God: it came as temptation in the garden, and in the infralapsarian era has been intensiﬁed through the unyielding nature of the world itself and the unending fraternal struggle within the human community. As Barth puts it: Face to face with temptation he cannot maintain the goodness of his creation in the divine image and foreordination to the divine likeness . . . [I]n himself and as such man will always do as Adam did in Gen. 3.59 Because of the catastrophic human failure under peirasmo,j, the individual is threatened with her own disintegration as a person – and, indeed, her eventual death. Peirasmo,j is the gateway to the captivity of the self to the world of sin, the ﬂesh and the Devil (to use NT language). The biblical history records the history of the human subject’s utter capriciousness; of the human individual’s unwilling inability to be truly herself, even to herself. That is to say, trial and temptation throw into radical question – a question not readily answered – what the ingredients of authentic human life might be. For Gregersen, under the pressure of trial and temptation ‘both the objective arena of the world and the subjective arena of the self are seen as unreliable. Only God is reliable.’ We see something of this disintegrating human subjectivity under the power of sin famously expressed by Paul in Rom. 7.7-24: ‘[O] wretched man that I am!’60 It was necessary for Jesus Christ to undergo peirasmo,j to demonstrate his total solidarity with humankind and to defeat the evil one. If the Son of God really was to share the human condition, then he needed to be exposed to the actuality of peirasmo,j. The trials and temptations of Jesus in the wilderness and in Gethsemane are shown so that it might be known that there was one who passed through the peirasmo,j and emerged victorious over Satan. Here was one whose identity did not disintegrate under the testing. These episodes 58 This, of course, raises a theodicial question: how does the presence of temptation/ trial square logically with belief in the providentia dei? To attempt to answer this is beyond our present scope, other than to note that Christian martyrs, as they witness to Christ’s own victory through suffering, testify to powerful hope in the sovereign God (their ‘eschatological imagination’) in such a way that the question loses its existential force – for them at least. For a theodicy that makes use of martyrdom, see Marilyn McCord Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), p. 126. 59 Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.ii., p. 122. 60 Gregersen, ‘Trial and temptation’, p. 343.

‘WHO KILLED THE ARCHBISHOP?’

181

reveal not only Satan’s impotence against the Son of God, but also the ﬁttingness of Christ to become High Priest and sacriﬁce. The cross of Christ itself is the sign of his ultimate defeat of Satan.61 In answer to the peirasmo,j of human experience, Christ re-invites and empowers trust in the providence of a righteous, covenanting God – whose providential care of the world is revealed most completely in him. We learn much from the manner of his victory: he reaches down into the Word of God and rests on it; he submits his will to God as he prays, for the good of others. Further, he himself carries out the divine providential action in his death and resurrection, by these actions enabling the world ‘to become itself by action within, and over against, its fallen structures’.62 This is inclusive of human beings, who rightly respond when they cry out to the Lord for deliverance. I have in mind in particular Rom. 8.19ff, where the redemption-action of Christ has its effect in terms of the adoption of human beings into the family of God and also the future liberation of the creation itself, which elicits much groaning under the present conditions of trial. The Lord’s Prayer – the prayer taught by the Son of God to his disciples – gives voice to this felt disparity in human experience. For their part, Christ’s disciples are thrust anew into the experience of peirasmo,j: the weakness of the ﬂesh, the hostility of the world and the attacks of the Evil One. As they seek to imitate him, peirasmo,j naturally features as part of that mimetic action; as it was part of the narrative logic of his life, so it is now of theirs, given their union with him. Satan renews his efforts against those whose determination is to defy him, though it is not by their strength in this battle that he is defeated. These are merely the lashings of a bestial tail (Rev. 12.4). The peirasmo,j may result in bloody martyrdom, which is entirely unsurprising, given the nature of the challenger and his challenge. However, the victory belongs already to Christ himself.

61 This is a theme in Pauline theology: ‘He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it’ (Col. 2.15). 62 Gunton, The Triune Creator, p. 190.

This page intentionally left blank

8

Martyrdom and the self in review

A

Introduction

The ﬁnal chapter begins by resituating the discussion of the Christian self in the context of the lines of thought set in train in Chapter 2. In that chapter, I outlined Salman Rushdie’s attack on martyrdom as an identity, and his concern that any mindset or world-view that celebrated martyrdom is positively dangerous to human thriving on a global scale. It is, in terms of ‘the self’, an incoherent narrative, an orientation of the individual away from the good, and destructive of human community. The problem for his account – and even for Charles Taylor’s – is that authentically Christian martyrdom is not adequately reckoned with in their conception of the full human life though it is itself basic to Christian self-identity. Here, I start again with the play; or, more accurately, with a review of a relatively recent production of the play. A challenge is offered to the meaningfulness of the play in its own terms; a challenge which is illustrative of the challenge against Christian self-as-martyr.

B

A review of Murder in the Cathedral in production

In his essay-length review of Stephen Pimlott’s 1993 Stratford-upon-Avon production of Murder in the Cathedral, Emrys Jones argued that Eliot’s play succeeded in performance as a drama – though helped signiﬁcantly by some adventurous and skilful direction – despite the fact that the religious appeal of the play was now no longer relevant to most of the audience. Another reviewer, Sir Frank Kermode, went so far as to claim that, in his judgement, it was true that ‘[G]enerally speaking, the emphasis has shifted from martyrdom to agonised secular heroism . . .’1 Pimlott, it seems, had to reckon with a much more secular audience than perhaps Eliot had imagined. As Jones writes: 1 In The Times Literary Supplement, 28 May 1993, cited in Emrys Jones, ‘Murder in the Cathedral at Stratford’, in Marianne Thormählen (ed.), T. S. Eliot at the Turn of the Century (Lund: Lund University Press, 1994), p. 150. 183

184

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

Loosened from its ecclesiastical origins, the play has inescapably become more of a purely literary classic, and as it has moved further into the past, its 1930s Christian religiosity has also become more of an historical phenomenon.2 Jones is not arguing for such a change; rather, he counts himself as merely observing it, as the director seems to have. The power of the drama is less likely to reside in the identiﬁcation of the audience with Thomas or with the Chorus as Christians trying to live the Christian life, and the drama must ﬁnd its connection by other means. Pimlott deliberately cast Thomas as a non-spiritual man: a skilful manager and politician, perhaps, but certainly not an obvious priest-type. For his part, Craig Raine questions whether the play itself can now really work as a play even if a skilful production of it can.3 If the key component at the core of Thomas’s motivation is no longer credible, then are we not forced to supply another meaning to the death before us than the one given? It is surely the case that, if the religion of Eliot and of Thomas is now redundant, we must side with one of the alternative interpretations of the murder that the play itself makes available. Removing the ‘religious’ component of the death of the Archbishop leaves you with – what kind of death exactly? In what way is the death at all honourable or noble or admirable or representative if it is a secular martyrdom of some kind? In fact, Eliot makes sure that we cannot make this move. There is no ‘cause’ for which he dies – he is no Martin Luther King or Gandhi, no secularized saint. There is no particular noble cause of which he is the symbol. In fact, Thomas resists at every turn secularizing himself: that is surely the point! Eliot resists making him a modern hero representative of some modern cause. He does not even succumb to pride – unless you side with his murderers, who justify themselves (as he does not) by accusing him of delusions of spiritual grandeur. If the religious component is excised like that, is he not guilty of neglect of his duty, his people and his country? Is he not convicted of seditious action, or of wilfully provoking the wrath of the king in order to secure his place in history? What comfort or lesson can modern audiences take from this? Kermode’s suggestion of an ‘agonised secular heroism’ is clearly untenable. There is nothing heroic about Thomas in the ordinary (or in any) sense; in fact, as we have seen, heroism is one of his temptations. Jones for his part makes a stronger case. He reminds us that ‘the play is a play and not a theological or devotional discourse’;4 in his opinion, too many critics have read the play precisely the other way around.5 It is not intended as a ﬂat text, but as a script to be enlivened by performance. Jones asserts that Murder in the Cathedral has a real dramatic action at its centre and that it expresses a powerful aesthetic coherence of its own that is independent of the religious ideas that stimulated its creator. Just as the Greek plays continue to be powerful, 2 3 4 5

Ibid., p. 151. Raine, T. S. Eliot, p. 194. Jones, ‘Murder in the Cathedral at Stratford’, p. 157. No doubt the accusation could be levelled at this book!

MARTYRDOM AND THE SELF IN REVIEW

185

humanly convincing and aesthetically pleasing to contemporary audiences even though virtually no one holds to the mythic and religious ideas found in them, so Eliot’s drama will become part of the canon of great writing for the stage in the English language. Eliot has written a play that works in terms of its action – produced on stage it is rather less static than the use of verse would indicate. These critical responses are illustrative of the contemporary inability to come to terms with the martyr as anything but a pitiable and/or possibly dangerous ﬁgure. If the convictions that move Thomas do not convince the audience at some level, then it is hard to know how the drama can have any purchase other than as a historical curio. However, Jones thinks the historical reference and authenticity of the events depicted are perhaps more signiﬁcant than they at ﬁrst seem. Because these events are not invented as a morality tale of rather sentimental proportions, and because the characters are representations of real people engaged in what was a well-testiﬁed event locatable in space and dateable in time, the audience is not afforded the luxury of dismissing them as somehow fantastical and inhuman: ‘the play takes its strength from its ﬁdelity to history; as we watch we remember that this is an imitation of something that actually happened’.6 Jones, I presume, means by this that there is something universal about this, or rather something identiﬁably human in the calamity that plays out before us. I would wish to argue that the play is powerful as a drama, certainly, at that immediate and surface level of the audience’s ﬁrst encounter with it; but that this unusual and striking power is dependent on the Christian component of the play in a way in which the Greek tragedy is not in the same way dependent upon its religious world-view.7 This is because the Christian gospel is itself of the form of a dramatic action. Christianity is not at all disconnected from the action of the play, as if it inhabits only the fringes of the script in abstruse religious forms; rather, it everywhere and necessarily gives its actual form to the action of the play. The death of Thomas is so obviously and so insistently an imitation of the death of Christ; the form of the action of the play resembles in outline the temptation, passion and death of Jesus, without which it cannot bear its full meaning. We could go further in taking up Jones’s point about the historical aspect of the play: the connection with historical events through imaginative and symbolic reconstruction is quite distinctively a Christian development. Granted, Greek drama and literature on occasion took its subjects from history, or from pre-history; but it turned them into types and showed no real interest in the correspondence of the action to the action in history. In the Christian imagination, historical events are traceable in direct line back from the present; and though clearly ‘ﬁctional’ elements are added to the reconstruction of the event in order to make the dramatization appealing within the conventions of literary forms, we see reminders to the 6 Jones, ‘Murder in the Cathedral at Stratford’, p. 163. 7 Or it could be that the Greek experience of living in a world governed by a hidden fortuna is very similar to living in the contemporary secular world. The feeling of having to manage luck, as we have seen in our discussion of Nussbaum’s reading of Greek tragedy, is only too real for the post-Christian person.

186

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

audience everywhere that there are real historical events to which the action is intended to correspond, and of which the audience is meant to have a vicarious experience.8 Could it ever be said of a Greek drama, as Jones says of Murder in the Cathedral, that it ‘takes its strength from its ﬁdelity to history’? As we have seen, and as Eliot demonstrates in his play, a Christian view of the world – and of the self within that world – rests on an understanding of providence, not fortuna; and so history necessarily takes on a different signiﬁcance as a meaningfully continuous series of events. Not that the protagonist has to hand what that meaning is, any more than the Greek protagonist did. What Thomas possesses is a belief in the character of the ‘wheel’, however much he expresses bewilderment at the confusion of events that surround him. The contention that the play works as a drama when the religious aspect of it has lost its appeal is, then, quite ill-founded. The dramatic impact of the play – whatever connection it might make with its audience – comes (if it does) precisely on account of its construction as narrative within a Christian framework. To be drawn into the world of the play is to accept (at least, for a time) Eliot’s construal of the way time and space are ordered and arranged; the alternative, it seems, is that the audience must become hostile to Thomas and to his playwright and so side with the Tempters and the Knights in accusing and convicting him. It is facile to suggest, as Jones does, that the contemporary audience’s lack of interest in and even mistrust of institutional Christianity can be set aside by skilful direction and sound acting; or to draw, as he does, the false dichotomy between drama and religious text. Rather, the narrative logic of the play and its theological meaning are inseparable. This discussion of responses to the drama captures in nuce the concern of this work: to elucidate Christian selfhood via martyrdom against the backdrop of an often hostile secular verdict – namely, the charge that it is an inauthentic form of human life. It is true that sometimes an attempt is made to secularize the Christian martyrs, by focusing possibly on the manner of their deaths, or on some exercise of impressive virtue they showed under trial, or perhaps on the injustice against which they stood: to recast them as heroes of acceptable values under a secular paradigm, in other words. But, as in the case of Salman

8 Paul Ricoeur argues that the history and ﬁction intersect in the way they refer to the ‘real’ world. As he puts it: ‘Our ultimate interest when we do history is to enlarge our sphere of communication: that is, to encounter that which is different to us. But this requires an imaginative act, which is, to suspend your own conditions and desires and assumptions, in order to be communicated to . . . My contention . . . is that it is in this exchange between history and ﬁction and between their opposite referential claims that our historicity is brought to language.’ This, I suspect, is a lesson that Ricoeur learnt from biblical hermeneutics. It takes the biblical world-view to connect history and ﬁction in this way. He concludes his article, somewhat characteristically, with a question: ‘Could we not say that by opening us to the different, history opens us to the possible, while ﬁction, by opening us to the unreal, brings us back to the essential?’ (Ricoeur, 1978: 199–202). There is an important point to be made about history here, too: that a play like Murder in the Cathedral, with all its obviously ‘ﬁctionalized’ elements, may actually ‘open us’ to the historical events to a far greater degree than a more conventionally modern historical account – which may, for all its technical impressiveness, actually alienate us from them.

MARTYRDOM AND THE SELF IN REVIEW

187

Rushdie, martyrdom is frequently cast as the result of a dangerous overdose of ego: it is a failure to live, and a corruption of love. It amounts to a denial of the duty to live with others, a denial which is particularly unacceptable in the contemporary world of shifting global allegiances and identities. It is a form of life of dubious authenticity, even in the terms set out more sympathetically by a Charles Taylor. It might be suggested at this point that there are really two incompatible and rival anthropologies (or rationalities) in play, with no conceivable way of mediating between them.9 These different reactions to Christian martyrdom indicate that there is a dissonance between the two different ‘rationalities’ (or perhaps Weltanschauungen). It is worth asking at this point, therefore, whether martyrdom becomes the ultimate ‘no’ to further communication with the other point of view. The willingness to be killed (as much as it is chosen by the martyr), almost as much as the willingness to kill, is the placing of an insurmountable barrier of blood between the two parties. Is martyrdom, then, merely a point at which two world-views are shown to be irreconcilable, and no more can be said: the scene of a great collision of identities? Is it merely a gesture of deﬁance against the alternative order of power? However, martyrdom is a remarkably successful form of communication to the world – if not universally so. It succeeds as witness. By the fourth century, the martyrs had succeeded not only in overcoming but in convincing many of their enemies.10 The note that Christian martyrdom strikes is dissonant to the extent that it exposes the futility of opposition to God. It testiﬁes to the non-ultimacy of human political power – and it testiﬁes in address to that power itself. Sometimes, it seems, even the rulers and the executioners – or if not they, then the people – get the message. For the church, as Tertullian’s axiom runs, semen est sanguis Christianorum; which is to say, the martyrs’ blood convinces outsiders of the need to become insiders. In the detailing of the four temptations, we have seen in several instances that the Christian martyrdom is not rebarbative or merely destructive, but rather, when it is authentically expressed, follows the example of the Lord who enjoined his followers to ‘love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you’. As we have seen, the self understood in Christian martyrdom is loyal even when resistant, but at the same time manages to relativize and critique human pretentions to power. If it is to be true to its fundamental nature as witness, it cannot in the last resort be seen as a deﬁant gesture, merely, but as one which is an invitation to join with the martyr in worship of the one Lord of heaven and earth. As such, there is in Christian martyrdom the invitation of contact – the possibility that the observer of the martyr’s death, or the hearer of her

9 To use terms gleaned from Alasdair MacIntyre (Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition (London: Duckworth, 1990)). 10 It is also apposite to recall the role of bloody martyrdoms in the evangelization of Africa, in resistance to atheistic totalitarianism behind the ‘iron curtain’, and in the survival and growth of the churches in contemporary China – all within the last two centuries. For an account of persecution in the twentieth century, see David Adeney, ‘The church and persecution’, in D. A. Carson (ed.), The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study (Exeter: Paternoster, 1987), pp. 275–348.

188

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

story, might be drawn into the world that the martyr describes. The question, then, must be: what is it about this form of selfhood that communicates (if it does)? This question asks at a deeper level: what is it in martyrdom, coming as it does out of a precisely Christian understanding of the self and the world, that is able to be meaningful enough in the terms of a world-view that is, at least at face value, utterly hostile to it? The word of the cross is, after all, a skandalon – and so, indeed, are its re-enactments. Theologically speaking, it is only the Spirit of God himself that illuminates this enactment of the gospel of Jesus Christ as a testimony to the truth. Martyrologists who exaggerate the details of the suffering and torture of the martyrs in order to increase the rhetorical impact of their work are in fact doing the martyr a great disservice. They are acting as if a divine act were in need of human enhancement to be effective. The risk here is that the martyr is painted as merely a victim, and the rhetorical impact of telling the story is then limited to pathos for the suffering of the victim. The content of his or her witness then disintegrates. The gospels show the way here: as we read of the death of Jesus, we may feel pity for the disciples, and sorrow for the role our fellow human beings played in his execution, and even disgust and outrage at the injustice perpetuated. But the evangelists do not draw us to pity Jesus; they do not dwell on the gruesome details of his torture and suffering (pace Mel Gibson); they do not portray him as powerless or voiceless; they do not depict the sadistic pleasure of his executioners. Jesus is no victim; events do not get out of hand for him at all – he is seen as always ahead of them. His innocence is not established merely so we can feel appalled at the miscarriage of justice, but so that we can understand the signiﬁcance of his sacriﬁce in a theological matrix. There were (and are) worse, more painful deaths; there certainly were (and are) more pitiable victims of injustice. Jesus is not, like some protagonist in a Greek tragedy, the victim of a twist in fate or the misalignment of the planets. An account that emphasizes the pathos of Jesus’s death quite misses the point – which is that the cross of Christ is the expression par excellence of the divine rule over all. It is the moment of the enthronement of Israel’s messiah in Zion and over the whole world. Likewise, a martyrology that dwells too luridly on the blood that ﬂows is not a martyrology but a victimology. A death cast in these terms in the end witnesses only to itself as a death. The best of the early martyr-acts, for all their faults, do not lapse in this direction: Polycarp, for example, though of great age, dies in such a way that his captors look more pitiable than he. Events are not in their control (nor Polycarp’s); but Polycarp’s faith and assurance make it a triumph. Who could feel sorry for him? For David Bentley Hart, the ‘gift of martyrdom’ is the apogee of the Christian practice of persuasion, encapsulating its form and referencing its content. His stated project is to mount a defence of the ‘beauty to whose persuasive power the Christian rhetoric of evangelism appeals’11 against the charge from contemporary philosophy that this Christian rhetoric of peace is in fact inescapably violent. As Hart writes: 11 David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Inﬁnite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 1.

MARTYRDOM AND THE SELF IN REVIEW

189

Christ is a persuasion, a form of evoking desire, and the whole force of the gospel depends upon the assumption that this persuasion is also peace: that the desire awakened by the shape of Christ and his church is one truly reborn as agape, rather than merely the way in which a lesser force succumbs to a great, as an episode in the endless epic of power.12 If the gospel is merely an iron ﬁst, even if placed in a velvet glove, then the Nietzschean/postmodern charge is sustained. Hart closes his book with a chapter entitled ‘The Gift of Martyrs’, in which he shows well that the Christian practice of authority contrasts markedly in form with the exercise of governmentality (to use Foucault’s term) because it is different in nature: . . . theology has no choice but to cling to its own peculiar practice of persuasion, in order to resist the temptations of power (and in a history governed by sin, these temptations inhabit every moment); Christianity can only return to its understanding of peace, its unique style of rhetoric, as the sole source of accord; it must always obey the form of Christ, its persuasion must always assume the shape of the gift he is, it must practice its rhetoric under the only aspect it may wear if it is indeed Christian at all: martyrdom . . . Theology must, because of what its particular story is, have the form of martyrdom, witness, a peaceful offer that has already suffered rejection and must be prepared for rejection as a consequence.13 Through its imitation of Christ’s manner of rule – which the martyrs exemplify – the Christian community shows itself to be ruled by such a servant Lord (echoing the argument of Chapter 4). Hart’s emphasis on the ‘renunciation of violence’ as the core meaning of the cruciﬁxion to be imitated in the practices of the church takes the place that rightly belongs to ‘sacriﬁcial love’ – which is not tantamount to the same thing.14 However, what he rightly shows is that, in the very ‘clinging’ of the disciples of Christ to that mode of speech and life which is the only one consonant with the message of the gospel Christians are commissioned to preach, the ubiquitous temptations of power are to be evaded. Thus, it is also possible to speak on the human side of the question: the witness of the martyr occurs within the human sphere of speaking and listening, acting and observing. This question is addressed by Kevin Vanhoozer in The Drama of Doctrine.15 Fittingly, he uses in the book the motifs of the theatre and performance with which to describe Christian speech and action as they

12 Ibid., p. 3. 13 Ibid., p. 441. 14 I would complain here that Hart’s language of ‘theology must . . .’ is a dangerous abstraction which contrasts with the concrete experience and the verbal expression of martyrs. ‘Theology’ is not an entity of agency that it can be the subject of a verb in this way. 15 Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, pp. 431–4.

190

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

are generated and respond to divine speech-acts.16 For Vanhoozer, martyrdom as an imitation of the cross of Christ is an embodiment by the church of the gospel it preaches. As such, nothing is more alienating to the world: by acting in this way the church ‘throws into question Everyman’s everyday assumptions about the meaning of life and the human good’.17 This has almost exactly been my contention throughout: the martyr walks away from those meanings and goods, not because they are blatantly wrong, or not-goods, but because they aren’t enough. But martyrdom is not only given a critical function: martyrdom is a dramatic performance of the death of Christ for the world;18 it is the ‘quintessential form of prophetic action’ implying that it is inherently an addressed action.19 As a drama, then – a narrative performed or enacted – Christian martyrdom invites the outsider to consider the truth to which the martyr testiﬁes. In martyrdom, speech and action are spectacularly united. It is truth-telling to the last degree. Bruce D. Marshall observes: the cruciform holiness of the saints – perhaps above all of the martyrs . . . – displays the habitability of the demanding world which there must be if the church’s central beliefs are true, the world into which the Spirit aims to draw us all.20 In this perceptive comment Marshall ties together several of the threads of the present discussion: the way in which martyrs actually reveal to the world the way the world really is for the sake of the world on the one hand, and the transforming power of the Spirit at work through the ‘cruciform holiness of the saints’ on the other. It is a narrative-action which makes a claim about what is true; it claims for itself a referent in the real world of ﬂesh and blood, life and death.

C

In review

Our intention throughout has been to give a theological (rather than, say, historical, philosophical or sociological) account of selfhood and identity as it is informed by Christian martyrdom. I have deployed throughout – and observed how other accounts make use of – three ‘questions of the self’ in order to orient (though not to limit) the discussion: ‘what kind of narration of 16 An idea he adapted from his own teacher, Nicholas Lash: ‘. . . the fundamental form of the Christian interpretation of scripture is the life, activity and organization of the believing community . . . Christian practice, as interpretative action, consists in the performance of texts which are construed as “rendering”, bearing witness to, one whose words and deeds, discourse and suffering, “rendered” the truth of God in human history’. See Lash, ‘Performing the scriptures’, p. 42. 17 Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, p. 428. 18 Though, note, not a repetition: the martyr’s death is not an atoning death; only Christ’s is held to be this. 19 Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, p. 429. 20 B. Marshall, Trinity and Truth, p. 207.

MARTYRDOM AND THE SELF IN REVIEW

191

the self is indicated?’, ‘what account of the good is given, and how is it to be realized?’ and ‘how are the relationships between this self and other selves to be described?’ The basic theological datum with which I began was that martyrdom in the form of witness was inseparable from the identity of the Christian, with bloody martyrdom as its ‘external representation’. Bloody martyrdom, then, is a sign of what the inner reality of the Christian life is like. I noted at this stage that discussions of religious martyrdom occur under pressure of a severe critique: it is certainly not a given that martyrdom is esteemed as a form of death just in and of itself. Rather, martyrs are accused of denying life and of perverting love, of resiling from their duty to do good, of neglecting the bonds of family and friendship, of extreme egotism of a destructive kind. This amounts to an inauthentic or dubious form of selfhood, it would seem. The spectre of religious violence hangs always and already over any discussion of martyrdom in the modern setting. Martyrs are more likely to inspire fear and loathing than reverence. However (I asked), is it the case that Christian martyrdom really falls under this critique? Chapter 2 then examined two powerful and very different attempts to describe authentic selfhood in the contemporary world and asked whether either of them could make sense of an identity informed by the idea of Christian martyrdom. Of Charles Taylor it was argued that he was bending over backwards to make room for the possibility of Christian martyrdom, or something like it, in his account of authenticity, but that he was not ﬁrm enough about the possibility of distorted or disreputable ‘horizons of signiﬁcance’. Martyrs are not those who accept that their understanding of reality is just one among many, after all. Salman Rushdie, for his part, presents a far more irascible figure. He is vehemently opposed to martyrdom as a model for human self-identity: it is far too embedded in traditional ways of seeing the world that do not adequately understand the shifting and liquid conditions of the present order. It is insufﬁciently open to new experiences and corrupting of the love between individuals. It perpetuates the cycle of violence by preaching resentment and hatred, by viewing the subject as identiﬁable through his or her victimhood. It allows human beings excuses for not feeling and for not living as they might. It is the result of a ﬁdeistic form of religion that cordons itself off from reason. However, Rushdie’s account is not without its own difﬁculties: it is hard to see that he has successfully escaped from the ‘self-determination’ problem that Taylor derides in his account. Furthermore, while his depiction of martyrdom may be valid for some Christian and other religious martyrdoms, it is certainly not the case that his criticisms of martyrdom in this guise fairly describe a Christian martyrdom that is true to its own sources – in the example of Christ himself, in the canonical Scriptures and in the ripening tradition. In fact, what Rushdie seeks in a self-identity is in some ways quite similar to that which is described by Christian martyrdom. Rushdie seeks to free the individual from the matrices of the past: culture, religion, race, gender and so on; and as we have seen, the Christian martyr is one who is not beholden to these either. Rushdie applauds the embrace of ‘the new’, delights in unforeseen possibilities and the potential for boundary-crossing connections between human beings in the name of peace – again, these themes are afﬁrmed rather than denied by Christian martyrdom, it turns out. However, the characters

192

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

that Rushdie introduces are still masters of their own destinies and makers of their own images. They are paragons of self-determining freedom, above all, attempting to narrate themselves into authentic selfhood. Into this context I offered the reading of Christian martyrdom as generated by Eliot in his perceptive play. The meaning of the martyrdom – and, indeed, the identity of the martyr – is informed, as we watch the visitation of the Tempters to Thomas, by that which the martyr renounces. Many of the things renounced are very good and worthy ways to be: they are all the more powerful as temptations for being so. These are promising potential selves, full of opportunity to be useful to society and to be fulﬁlled and powerful as an individual. The First Tempter offers Thomas the chance to guard himself against the twists and turns of fate by pursuing a life of ease and security; or, at least, he offers him the yearning for the time when he had this life. Transposing this temptation into the terms offered by Martha C. Nussbaum in her analysis of Greek tragedy, we saw how the management of luck and the securing of safety was (and remains) a crucial component of successful existence in a world fraught with chance. However, the martyr walks away from this potential for security. Discipleship of Christ is described as not a matter for looking back to home, or even looking around in the present for cover against whatever may come, but rather for looking ahead to the eternal city promised in the gospel of Jesus (as we discovered with Augustine’s help). The martyr-disciple steps out into risk knowing that there is no turning back, and that the cost may be great. However, he or she is not merely a thrill-seeker, riding a wave of risk all the way to the shoreline; on the contrary, the risk is taken in the context of hope secured in the ascended Lord Christ. This ‘risk-taking’ by the disciple also exposes the temporary nature of human fortiﬁcations against luck. Christian martyrdom is not a cult of death. The accusation levelled against martyrs is that the stance they take is merely negative and wholly life-denying; that martyrdom is a denial of the goodness of the created world; that it leans towards an eschatology of disruption and destruction rather than towards one of transformation. As we have seen in answer to the First Tempter, Christian discipleship does mean a renunciation of the things of the world – but it also means a return to them. The martyr’s faith in providence relativizes the importance of all created things but in doing so does not anathematize them. In Bonhoeffer’s terms, it orders the Penultimate to the Ultimate (this language was used in Chapter 5). In particular, the martyr who gives away his or her life does so because there is nothing more valuable that he or she might give. After all, as the Jesus of John’s gospel says: ‘[G]reater love has no one than this . . .’ The death of the martyr is not a resignation to fate, but truly points to the value of life. You cannot consider laying down your life for your friends a sacriﬁce of any signiﬁcance if you hold life cheap. As Charles Taylor recognizes, there is a ‘powerful sense of loss’21 at the heart of Christian martyrdom, because there is something given away that is worth losing. Life in its fullness is hallowed by martyrdom. The structure of the resurrection belief to which the martyr witnesses is an afﬁrmation of the goodness of the created order,

21 Taylor, Sources of the Self, p. 219.

MARTYRDOM AND THE SELF IN REVIEW

193

pointing not to its eradication by the coming new order but to its transformation. In the words of John Paul II, ‘martyrdom is also the exaltation of a person’s perfect “humanity” and of true “life”’.22 The Second Tempter, in a tactic pursued also by the Fourth, tries to catch Thomas in a double-bind. On the one hand he offers to him the chance to make peace with his (God-appointed) ruler so that the two may collaborate in performing the business of government: meting out justice for the good of the people. The price? ‘A certain submission’ to the king. When Thomas draws back from this, appealing to the ‘power of the keys’, the Tempter accuses him of power-hunger. We saw next in the discussion of Richard Rorty that this temptation is not unique to conditions of monarchy and papacy; in fact, even under contemporary forms of liberal order a version of this temptation will be on offer. Churches may be tempted to secede their distinctive speech in favour of being able to participate in the public square, or may be accused of sectarianism if they refrain. The response from Scripture and the tradition (this time chieﬂy Augustine, Tyndale and O’Donovan) is to advance the insight, revealed in the martyr’s renunciation, that power and authority have a single source though a dual expression. This helps both to relativize the power of the imperium and to show it as circumscribed by divine authority at every point; and also to encourage the church that in the gospel it has its own authority – though it is of a distinctively non-coercive and persuasive nature. Christian martyrdom is not merely a stand of eternal dissidence, it is a witness to the rule of God in Christ. While on the one hand the martyr refuses to accept the absolute claims of human rule outside Christ, on the other he or she readily acknowledges the delegation of divine authority to even the pagan ruler. This was evidenced in the reports of the early martyrs and their attitudes of respectful deﬁance when it came to their interrogators. Martyrdom exposes the folly of human imperialism and so is a great comfort to the oppressed. Thus, it can indeed accept peace terms when they come. A return to the catacombs is not what it is to be truly Christian, but the Christian must always be at the ready for the time when the tide turns and martyrdom becomes a possibility again. The churches must always remember the nature of the particular task for which they carry divine authorization. The Third Tempter, also interested in power, offers to Thomas the option of rebellion against the King on behalf of the true essence of the nation. There is a case to be made here: after all, tyranny is worth ﬁghting against. There may be more natural and more just forms of government available. Again the case is made that this is the way in which more just outcomes for the English people can be pursued. This would be the more patriotic option. What is more, this is a path of action, of putting noble thoughts into concrete practice. Yet again, the martyr refuses. The form that his resistance to power takes is loyal; he does not hold national identity as an absolute value by any means; and he refuses to assert himself by seizing at action that will achieve that end. In fact (as we saw with the assistance of Dietrich Bonhoeffer), he acts ‘passively’ – which is 22 John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993), www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/ encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html (accessed 5 June 2007).

194

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

to say, in a way that takes responsibility for others, that is prepared to suffer what may come. In the Fourth Tempter we have the most surprising of the temptations and another one that takes a twofold course: martyrdom itself is offered, ﬁrst with Thomas imagining how he will be remembered and honoured by posterity, and secondly with him imagining the crown of heaven being placed on his deserving temples. The renunciation of the ﬁrst three temptations runs headlong into this fourth: if Thomas imagines himself accruing heavenly merit and forcing the divine hand on account of his repudiation of the secured self, the powerful self and the active self, he is sorely mistaken. He must also set aside his own self-designation of himself as a martyred self. We ﬁnd these temptations maintained ﬁrst in the representation of the ancient ‘honour ethic’, with all its military trappings; and secondly in the theology of heavenly rewards, which is widespread in religious accounts of martyrdom including some Christian ones, admittedly. Both of these descriptions of martyrdom are proven to be problematically self-justifying. The insight given in the renunciation of this temptation is that, as Thomas is able to declare to his congregation in the Cathedral on St Stephen’s Day, martyrdom is itself an act of God. The making of martyrs is given to divine providence and not to human hands. As we saw, it was Augustine in particular who had to wrestle with this in the context of great enthusiasm for martyrdom in the church of his day. The Christian offers himself or herself in free obedience as a witness to the divine rule; the outcome is not for him or her to determine. As Eliot puts it: ‘Christian martyrdom is no accident.’ Christian martyrdom is an act only made possible by God in Jesus Christ. As Thomas learns, one cannot self-designate as a martyr, or pursue martyrdom for its own sake. Dying a martyr’s death isn’t the result of a persecution complex, or of the choice of a disciple that he or she is going to be granted this particular crown. Christians are only called to discipleship, of which bloody martyrdom might be the terrifying consequence. The example of martyrdom is a testimony to the divine work rather than the choice and action of a human being. As we see in the fourth temptation, a martyrdom taken as a human performance in search of divine afﬁrmation becomes something other than martyrdom. The martyr, rather, engages in an ‘eternal patience’, a watching for God like Christ in Gethsemane. As such, Christian martyrdom is not the result of some virtue like courage, but of seeing the world with the eyes of faith, as the gospel of Jesus Christ declares it to be. This is not to say, of course, that remarkable courage isn’t displayed by those who are martyred; only that courage or some other virtue is not its ground. In all the temptations offered to Thomas, we see that the martyr is, rather than pursuing some course of action per se, the one who places him- or herself in the hands of providence. This is a response of faith rather than an act of courage. In Chapter 7, I drew attention to the twin poles of temptation and providence. These themes had been constantly with us as the four temptations were examined. The move in the narrative was away from temptation, not towards a construction or assertion of a new identity or self, but towards a vision of the providence of God, in Christ. I asked, ‘Who killed the Archbishop?’, which is to do just as the play itself invites us. peirasmo,j – a concept inclusive of trial

MARTYRDOM AND THE SELF IN REVIEW

195

and temptation – is part of the ‘narrative logic’ of martyrdom. peirasmo,j, it was determined, is an inescapable condition for human beings; but it is not clear from within the human sphere by what strength a human being may overcome it. It is an inescapable and undefeatable given. There is no self, no identity, that a person may put forward or construct in order to overcome and endure peirasmo,j with any hope of success. What is more, peirasmo,j is so severe as to threaten the individual with her own disintegration as a person. By investigating the pattern of martyrdom, once again with the aid of the narrative structure provided for us by Eliot in his play, it was shown that it is the Christian faith in the providence of God, consummated in the life, death and resurrection of Christ, which is the foundation for resistance and renunciation of peirasmo,j – and, thus, for authentic selfhood. Christ himself undergoes peirasmo,j as a trial and as a temptation, and is revealed as overcoming both. In this last chapter I have attempted to bring my study to its consummation by returning – conveniently by means of critical discussion of Murder in the Cathedral in performance – to the question of whether martyrdom represents, in fact, the utter breakdown in communication between two competing views of the world and of human identity. What I propose is that the self expressed in Christian martyrdom, as a testimony to truth, does not entirely repel, but rather invites. It is offered as a suffering form of persuasion to which the persuader is entirely committed, as a self. The dramatic form that martyrdom takes draws the observer into the narrative thought-world, shaped by peirasmo,j from the human side and by providence from the divine side; and ultimately ﬁnds these two aspects conjoined in the (hi)story of Jesus Christ. Christian martyrdom shows that the Christian life is lived for the world, and not just for the Christian churches. While it is true that the deaths of the martyrs are a great encouragement to the body of Christ, it is also the case that Christian martyrdoms are oriented to the outside. As William Cavanaugh puts it: ‘[T]he pyres which burn the martyrs’ bodies serve as light for the world, not isolating the community of believers but calling all to the city on the hill.’23 That a martyr brings about the exposure of the folly of tyranny brings beneﬁts to all citizens, and not just to Christians. In being for the world, identity shaped by Christian martyrdom follows the pattern of the distinctively Christian way of speaking to the world. Martyrdom is part of the missio dei to the world, and shows how Christian discipleship in general is to be oriented to the world. In keeping their presentation of the cruciﬁed messiah to the world, Christians offer a suffering witness as against a speech of power and domination. Neither is the Christian gospel a discourse of rights or ideals, unless perhaps it is on behalf of others. It does not participate in the victim-identity mode of speech. Rather, it embodies the ‘message of the cross’. To use Paul’s language: it is a making-strong-through-weakness, not an assertion of the will-to-power. Christian martyrdom is a sign of the ongoing power and effectiveness of the gospel of Jesus in the world. That people are willing to die for Christ shows

23 Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist, p. 64.

196

MARTYRDOM AND IDENTITY

that the gospel of Jesus Christ is really effective to change the lives – the selves – of human beings. Clearly, in an ongoing way, people are prepared to stake all they have, and are, and potentially could be, on this construal of reality. Martyrs are, in this way, a divine provision for the ediﬁcation of the body of Christ; they are also a divine gift to all the nations. They witness in their suffering bodies to the nature and scope of divine authority as it was established in the person and work of Christ.

D

Conclusion

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, addressing the Christians of Rome, where he was himself soon to be martyred, wrote: ‘[H]ave mercy on me, brethren: do not hold me back from living; do not wish that I die . . . Let me arrive at the pure light; once there I will be truly a man [a;nqrwpoj]. Let me imitate the passion of my God.’24 Christian martyrdom is not a making of one’s own meaning as a human being or the tracing out of one’s own authenticity or identity. The Christian disciple is satisﬁed merely to declare ‘I am a Christian’, and to leave the rest in the hands of providence – known as it is in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In martyrdom, there is an attempt by one human being to eviscerate the humanity of another; yet the promise is that it is the inhumanity of the perpetrator which is actually unmasked. Further, we see anticipated in martyrdom – in the true humanity of the martyr, to use Ignatius’ notion – the divine vindication of the martyr, in that it echoes the decisive death of Jesus Christ, who was raised from the dead: I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; they cried out with a loud voice, ‘Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?’ They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number would be complete both of their fellow servants and of their brothers and sisters, who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed. (Rev. 6.9-11)

24 ‘Epistle to the Romans’, XVI, in Musurillo (2000: 214–15).

Bibliography

Abbreviations JSNT JSOT SPCK

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

Abbey, Ruth, Charles Taylor (Teddington: Acumen, 2000). Adams, Marilyn McCord, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999). Adeney, David H., ‘The church and persecution’, in D. A. Carson (ed.), The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study (Exeter: Paternoster, 1987), pp. 275–348. Aghapour, Andrew, ‘Identity and religion of the status quo: The Rushdie affair in the West’, Chrestomathy, 4 (2005), pp. 1–18. Ahmed, Akbar S., ‘Death in Islam: The Hawke’s Bay Case’, Man, 21(1) (1986), pp. 120–34. Allison, Dale C., and W. D. Davies, Matthew (London: T&T Clark International, 2004). Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981). Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1998). Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (ed. and trans. Roger Crisp; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Asad, Talal, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993). —On Suicide Bombing (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007). Asher, Kenneth G., T. S. Eliot and Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Auerbach, Erich, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953). Augustine, ‘The Trinity’, in Augustine: Later Works (ed. John Burnaby; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955). —City of God (trans. H. Bettenson; Harmondsworth: Penguin, rev. edn, 1984). —Confessions (trans. Henry Chadwick; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Balthasar, Hans Urs von, Man in History: A Theological Study (London: Sheed and Ward, 1968). —The Moment of Christian Witness (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1994). 197

198

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barlow, Frank, Thomas Becket (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1986). Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics (trans. Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas Forsyth Torrance; London: T&T Clark International, 2nd edn, 2004). Barton, Carlin, ‘Honor and sacredness in the Roman and Christian worlds’, in Margaret Cormack (ed.), Sacriﬁcing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 23–38. Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). Benhabib, Seyla, Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (New York: Routledge, 1992). Block, Daniel I., The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 2; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997). Bloom, Allan D., The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987). Bond, Edward, Lear (London: Methuen, 1994). Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Temptation (London: SCM Press, 1955). —Letters and Papers from Prison (ed. Eberhard Bethge; London: SCM Press, 1999). —The Cost of Discipleship (trans. R. H. Fuller; London: SCM Press, 2001). —Ethics (ed. Clifford J. Green; trans. R. Krauss, C. West and D. Stott; Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Vol. 6; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005). Bowersock, G. W., Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Boyarin, Daniel, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999). Boyle, David, Authenticity: Brands, Fakes, Spin and the Lust for Real Life (London: Harper Perennial, 2004). Brians, Paul, The Unity of the Satanic Verses – Notes on Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses, www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/unity.html (accessed 5 May 2006). Brock, Brian, Singing the Ethos of God: On the Place of Christian Ethics in Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007). Brooks, David, ‘The culture of martyrdom’, Atlantic Monthly, 289(6) (2002), pp. 18–20 Brown, Peter, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1981). Brueggemann, Walter, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). Bultmann, Rudolf K., The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. Rupert Hoare, John Riches and George R. Beasley-Murray; Oxford: Blackwell, 1971). Burridge, Richard A., Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007). Butterﬁeld, Herbert, Christianity and History (London: Collins/Fontana, 1957). Butterweck, Christel, ‘Martyriumssucht’ in der alten Kirche?: Studien zur Darstellung und Deutung frühchristlicher Martyrien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995). Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Leicester: Apollos 1991). Castelli, Elizabeth A., Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making, Gender, Theory, and Religion (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004). Cavanaugh, William T., Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ (Challenges in Contemporary Theology; Oxford: Blackwell, 1998) Cook, David, Martyrdom in Islam (Themes in Islamic History; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Cyprian, The Writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (trans. Robert Ernest Wallis; Ante-Nicene Christian Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1870). Däumer, Elizabeth, ‘Blood and witness: The reception of Murder in the Cathedral in postwar Germany’, Comparative Literature Studies, 43(1–2) (2006), pp. 179–99. Davie, Donald, ‘Anglican Eliot’, in A. Walton Litz (ed.), Eliot in His Time: Essays on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Waste Land (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973). de Sainte Croix, G. E. M., ‘Why were the early Christians persecuted?’, Past and Present, 26 (1963), p. 32. Dragas, George, ‘Martyrdom and orthodoxy in the New Testament era – the theme of Ma,rturia as witness to the truth’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 30(3) (1985). Eichrodt, Walter, ‘Is typological exegesis an appropriate method?’, in Claus Westermann (ed.), Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (London: SCM Press, 1963), pp. 224–45. Eliot, T. S., The Idea of a Christian Society (London: Faber, 1939). —Murder in the Cathedral (ed. Nevill Coghill; London: Faber, 1965). —The Complete Poems and Plays (London: Faber, 1969). —‘Tradition and the individual talent’, Perspecta, 19 (1982), pp. 36–42. Ellul, Jacques, The Meaning of the City (trans. Dennis Pardee; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970). Farrow, Douglas, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Signiﬁcance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). Fischel, H. A., ‘Martyr and prophet’, Jewish Quarterly Review, 37 (1946–47), pp. 265–80, 363–86. Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things (London: Routledge, 2002). Frei, Hans W., The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974). Frend, W. H. C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conﬂict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Oxford: Blackwell,1965). —The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). Freund, Richard A., ‘The land which bled forth its bounty’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 13(2) (1999), pp. 284–97. Frye, Northrop, The Great Code – the Bible in Literature (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1982). Giddens, Anthony, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell, 1991). Goldingay, John, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006a).

200

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006b). Goldsworthy, Graeme, Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics: Biblical-Theological Foundations and Principles (Nottingham: Apollos, 2006). Gregersen, Niels Henrik, ‘Trial and temptation: An essay in the multiple logics of faith’, Theology Today, 57(3) (2000), pp. 325–43. Gregory, Brad S., Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). Grove, Robin, ‘Pereira and after: The cures of Eliot’s theatre’, in Anthony David Moody (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to T. S. Eliot (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 158–75. Gunton, Colin E., The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study (Edinburgh Studies in Constructive Theology; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998). Hanson, Paul D., The Dawn of Apocalytic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, (Philadelphia: Fortress, rev. edn, 1979). Harrison, J. R., ‘Paul and the imperial gospel at Thessaloniki’, JSNT, 25(1) (2002), pp. 71–96. Hart, David Bentley, The Beauty of the Inﬁnite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Hauerwas, Stanley, After Christendom?: How the Church is to Behave if Freedom, Justice, and a Christian Nation are Bad Ideas (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1991). —Wilderness Wanderings: Probing Twentieth-Century Theology and Philosophy (London: SCM Press, 2001). Hays, Richard B., The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). (Originally PhD dissertation, Emory University, 1981.) Hernadi, Paul, ‘Modern martyr plays beyond genre’, Neohelicon, 13(1) (1986), pp. 141–62. Heyes, Cressida, ‘Identity politics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/identitypolitics/ (accessed 13 Oct. 2009). Hovey, Craig, To Share in the Body: A Theology of Martyrdom for Today’s Church (Michigan: Brazos, 2008). Huebner, Chris K., A Precarious Peace: Yoderian Explorations on Theology, Knowledge and Identity (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2006). Hütter, R., Suffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice (trans. D. Stott; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000). Irenaeus, Against the Heresies (trans. Dominic J. Unger and John J. Dillon; Ancient Christian Writers, No. 55; New York: Paulist Press, 1992). Jensen, Michael P., ‘Simply reading the Geneva Bible’, Literature and Theology, 9(1) (1995), pp. 30–45. —‘The genesis of hell: Eternal torment in the consciousness of early Christianity’, Reformed Theological Review, 65(3) (2006), pp. 132–48. —‘Review of Elizabeth A. Castelli, Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making’, Studies in Christian Ethics, 20(1) (2007a), pp. 125–8. —‘Review of Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine’, Anvil, 24(3) (2007b), pp. 227–8.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

—‘In spirit and in truth: Can Charles Taylor help the woman at the well ﬁnd her authentic self?’, Studies in Christian Ethics, 21(3) (2008). —‘Review of Brian Brock, Singing the Ethos of God’, Anvil, 25 (1) (2008), pp. 68–9. Jensen, Peter F., The Future of Jesus (Sydney, NSW: ABC Books, 2005). John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993), www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/ encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html (accessed 5 Jun. 2007). Jones, Emrys, ‘Murder in the Cathedral at Stratford’, in Marianne Thormählen (ed.), T. S. Eliot at the Turn of the Century (Lund: Lund University Press, 1994). Jüngel, Eberhard, ‘On becoming truly human’, in Theological Essays I(i), (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 216–40. Kerr, Fergus, Immortal Longings: Versions of Transcending Humanity (London: SPCK, 1997). Kim, Seyoon, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr, 2nd edn, 1984). Kinneging, A. A. M., Aristocracy, Antiquity, & History: Classicism in Political Thought (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1997). Kirk, Kenneth E., The Vision of God: The Christian Doctrine of the Summum Bonum (Bampton Lectures; London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1931). Krause, Sharon, ‘The politics of distinction and disobedience: Honor and the defense of liberty in Montesquieu’, Polity, 31(3) (1999), pp. 469–99. Laitinen, Arto, and Nicholas H. Smith, Perspectives on the Philosophy of Charles Taylor (Helsinki: Philosophical Society of Finland, 2002). Lash, Nicholas., ‘Performing the scriptures’, in Theology on the Way to Emmaus (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005). Lewis, C. S., The Weight of Glory, and Other Addresses (ed. Walter Hooper; New York: Macmillan, rev. and expanded edn, 1980). Lincoln, Andrew T., ‘Trials, plots and the narrative of the fourth gospel’, JSNT, 56 (1994), pp. 3–30. —Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000). Longenecker, Richard N., The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997). Lucan, The Pharsalia of Lucan (trans. Edward Ridley; London: Longmans, Green & Co., 2nd edn, 1905). Luz, Ulrich, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary (ed. Helmut Koester; trans. James E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London: Penguin, 2004). MacIntyre, Alasdair C., After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2nd edn, 1984). —Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition (London: Duckworth, 1990). Marshall, Bruce D., Trinity and Truth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Marshall, I. Howard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999). McFadyen, Alistair I., The Call to Personhood: A Christian Theory of the Individual in Social Relationships (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

202

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—Bound to Sin: Abuse, Holocaust, and the Christian Doctrine of Sin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). McGrath, Alister E., Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justiﬁcation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1998). Michaels, J. Ramsey, 1 Peter (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988). Middleton, Paul, Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conﬂict in Early Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2006). Milbank, John, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward, Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology (Radical Orthodoxy Series; London: Routledge, 1998). Milton, John, The Complete Poems (ed. John Leonard; London: Penguin, 1998). Moltmann, Jürgen, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (London: SCM Press, 1996). Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992). Musurillo, Herbert, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Clarendon, spec. edn, 2000). Nussbaum, Martha Craven, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). —Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). Nygren, Anders, Agape and Eros (London: SPCK, 1982). O’Brien, Peter T., ‘The church as a heavenly and eschatological entity’, in D. A. Carson (ed.), The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study (Exeter: Paternoster, 1987), pp. 88–119. O’Donovan, Oliver, The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). —The Ways of Judgment (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005). O’Donovan, Oliver, and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan, From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought 100–1625 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). Oakes, Peter, ‘Re-mapping the universe: Paul and the emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians’, JSNT, 27(3) (2005), pp. 301–22. Origen, Against Celsus (trans. Frederick Crombie; Ante-Nicene Christian Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1878). —‘An exhortation to martyrdom’, in Rowan A. Greer (ed.), Origen (London: SPCK, 1979), pp. 41–79. Owen, E. C. E., Some Authentic Acts of the Early Martyrs (London: SPCK, 1933). Pelikan, Jaroslav, Acts (London: SCM Press, 2006). Perkins, Judith, The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era (London: Routledge, 1995). Pobee, John S., Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul (Shefﬁeld: JSOT Press, 1985). Rad, Gerhard von, ‘Typological interpretation of the Old Testament’, in Claus Westermann (ed.), Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (London: SCM Press, 1963), pp. 17–39. —Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; London: SCM Press, rev. edn, 1972).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

Rahner, Karl, On the Theology of Death (trans. C. H. Henkey; Quaestiones Disputatae, 2; New York: Herder and Herder, 1972). Raine, Craig, T. S. Eliot, Lives and Legacies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Ratzinger, Joseph, Values in a Time of Upheaval (New York: Crossroad, 2005). Rawls, John, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). Redhead, Mark, Charles Taylor: Thinking and Living Deep Diversity (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld, 2002). Reventlow, Henning, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century (London: SCM Press, 1986). Ricoeur, Paul, ‘The narrative function’, Semeia, 13 (1978), pp. 177–202. —Oneself as Another (trans. Kathleen Blamey; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Roberts, A., and J. Donaldson, The Apostolic Fathers (ed. Arthur Cleveland Coxe; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887a). —The Fathers of the 2nd Century (ed. Arthur Cleveland; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887b). Roberts, Julian, ‘Honour’, in The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.rep. routledge.com/article/L036 (accessed 1 May 2006). Rorty, Richard, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). —‘The priority of democracy to philosophy’, in Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 175–96. Rushdie, Salman, Midnight’s Children (London: Cape, 1981). —‘In good faith’, in Imaginary Homelands (London: Granta, 1991), pp. 393–414. —Step across this Line: Collected Non-Fiction 1992–2002 (London: Vintage, 2003). —The Satanic Verses (London: Vintage, 2006). Schechtman, Marya, The Constitution of Selves (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996). Schrag, Calvin O., The Self after Postmodernity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997). Scruton, Roger, The Meaning of Conservatism (London: Macmillan, 2nd edn, 1984). —Modern Culture (London: Continuum, 2nd edn, 2005). Shakespeare, William, Julius Caesar (New York: Courier Dove, 1991). Shelton, W. Brian, Martyrdom and Exegesis in Hippolytus: An Early Church Presbyter’s Commentary on Daniel (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2008). Shoemaker, David, ‘Personal identity and ethics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identityethics/ (accessed 13 Oct. 2009). Slane, Craig A., Bonhoeffer as Martyr: Social Responsibility and Modern Christian Commitment (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2004). Smith, J. Warren, ‘Martyrdom: self-denial or self-exaltation? Motives for self-sacriﬁce from Homer to Polycarp: a theological reﬂection’, Modern Theology, 22(2) (2006), 169–96.

204

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Smith, Lacey Baldwin, Fools, Martyrs, Traitors: The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1st edn, 1997). Stockton, Ian, ‘Advent and Gethsemane: Mark’s call to watch’, New Blackfriars, 84(994) (2003), pp. 571–6. Straw, Carole, ‘Martyrdom’, in Allan Fitzgerald and John C. Cavadini (eds), Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 538–42. —‘A very special death: Christian martyrdom in its classical context’, in Margaret Cormack (ed.), Sacriﬁcing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 39–57. Strawson, Galen, ‘Against narrativity’, Ratio, XVII (2004), pp. 428–52. Stroup, George W., The Promise of Narrative Theology (London: SCM Press, 1984). Tappert, Theodore G., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959). Taylor, Charles, ‘Critical notice of Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 18(4) (1988), pp. 805–15. —‘The Rushdie controversy’, Public Culture, 2(1) (1989a), pp. 118–22. —Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989b). —The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991). —‘The politics of recognition’, in Amy Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 25–74. —Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004). —A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007). Tertullian, The Writings of Quintus Sept. Flor. Tertullianus (trans. Sydney Thelwall, Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis; Ante-Nicene Christian Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869). Teske, Roland, ‘Augustine’s philosophy of memory’, in Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 148–58. Thiselton, Anthony C., Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self: On Meaning, Manipulation and Promise (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995). Trilling, Lionel, Sincerity and Authenticity (Oxford University Press: London, 1972). Trites, Allison A., ‘Ma,rtuj and martyrdom in the apocalypse: A semantic study’, Novum Testamentum, 15(1) (1973), pp. 72–80. Tyndale, William, The Obedience of a Christian Man (London: Penguin, 2000). Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ‘Human being: Individual and social’, in C. E. Gunton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 158–88. —The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster: John Knox Press, 2005). Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (Oxford: Robertson, 1983).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

Wannenwetsch, Bernd, ‘“Responsible Living” or “Responsible Self”? Bonhoefferian reflections on a vexed moral notion’, Studies in Christian Ethics, 18 (2005), pp. 125–40. Webb, B. G., Five Festal Garments: Christian Reﬂections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther (New Studies in Biblical Theology; UK: InterVarsity Press/Academic, 2001). Williams, Rowan, ‘Ascension’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press, 1983), pp. 43–5. Williams, Rowan, Christ on Trial: How the Gospel Unsettles Our Judgement (London: Fount, 2000a). —On Christian Theology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000b). —Why Study the Past? (Sarum Theological Lectures; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2005). Woodruff, Paul B., ‘Review of Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50(1) (1989), p. 205–10. Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God (London: SPCK, 1992). —Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). Wyschogrod, Edith, Saints and Postmodernism: Revisioning Moral Philosophy (Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1990). Yeats, W. B., The Collected Poems of W. B. Yeats (Ware: Wordsworth, 2000). Žižek, Slavoj, The Fragile Absolute: or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? (London: Verso, 2000).

Name Index

Entries in bold refer to lengthy references to the subject. Cavanaugh, William T. 66, 177n. 52, 195 Cavell, Edith 123n. 70 Clement of Alexandria 6, 139, 143 Clement of Rome 70, 86n. 16 Cook, David 141 Cyprian 6, 87n. 17, 88n. 25, 139, 144

Agapius (martyr) 119 Aghapour, Andrew 28n. 45, 37 Aristotle 49, 72, 115n. 49, 119n. 59, 125, 126, 137n. 11 Arkwright, Sir John 121n. 65 Asad, Talal 2n. 4, 27n. 38, 28n. 41 Auerbach, Eric 43 Augustine of Hippo 6, 20, 20n. 13, 30n. 48, 42, 46, 53, 59-62, 65, 66n. 77, 71, 71n. 93, 72, 83, 86–9, 94, 96, 132, 139–40, 142–4, 147–51, 155–6, 192–4

Davie, Donald 106 de Ste Croix, G.E.M. 144n. 34 Derrida, Jacques 22 Descartes, Rene 20 Dilthey, Wilhelm 7n. 25, 8n. 27 Dragas, George 4

Balthasar, Hans Urs von 6, 59, 61, 83, 83n. 11, 152n. 72, 159, 167 Barlow, Frank 47n. 18, 133n. 2, 164n. 14 Barth, Karl 125, 168n. 25, 174n. 42, 180 Bell, George 12 Benhabib, Seyla 7, 10n. 38, 21n. 17 Blandina (martyr) 111 Bloom, Allan D. 19n. 8 Bond, Edward 36n. 63 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 6, 42, 69, 96n. 53, 108n. 20, 114–15, 121, 121n. 62, 126– 8, 145–6, 152, 165, 168–71, 168n. 25, 169n. 29, 169n. 30, 177, 192–3 Bossuet, Jean-Bénigne 153, 155n. 80 Boyarin, Daniel 3 Boyle, David 24n. 31 Brock, Brian 42n. 2, 71n. 93 Brown, Peter 123n. 69, 151n. 66 Brueggeman, Walter 54n. 37 Bultmann, Rudolf 91n. 35, 118n. 52 Butler, Joseph 8n. 31 Butterﬁeld, Herbert 95, 95n. 50

Eichrodt, Walther 43n. 8 Eliot, Thomas Stearns (T.S.) 12–15, 46–7, 61, 72, 86n. 16, 90, 95, 105–7, 110, 117, 122–4, 128–9, 134, 143, 152, 155–6, 161–6, 162n. 10, 173n. 40, 174n. 41, 178, 183–6, 192, 194–5 Eusebius of Caesarea 87n. 20, 89 Farrow, Douglas 70n. 89 Fenélon, François 153, 155n. 80 Fischel, H.A. 160n. 4 Foucault, Michel 22, 23n. 24, 108, 189 Foxe, John 133n. 4, 159 Frei, Hans 43–5 Frend, W.H.C. 110 Frye, Northrop 44n. 11 Giddens, Anthony 7, 7n. 26, 22n. 21, 39n. 71, 49n. 22, 66n. 79 Göring, Hermann 163n. 12 Gregersen, Niels Henrik 166, 175n. 44, 177n. 51, 180 Gregory VII (Pope) 90n. 31 Gregory, Brad S. 42n. 1, 94n. 45, 145n. 40

Calvin, John 20n. 13, 30n. 48, 70n. 85, 91n. 33, 155, 167n. 22, 173n. 39, 174n. 42 Castelli, Elizabeth 6n. 21 206

NAME INDEX

Grove, Robin 163n. 13 Gunton, Colin E. 174n. 42, 175 Hanson, Paul D. 56n. 41, Hart, David Bentley 188–9, 189n. 14 Hauerwas, Stanley 52n. 34, 89n. 28, 90 Herder, Johan Gottfried 21, 25 Hernadi, Paul 160n. 3 Hooker, Richard 82 Hütter, Reinhard 115n. 49, 123n. 71, 126n. 77 Ignatius of Antioch 147, 196 Irenaeus of Lyons 172 Jensen, Peter F. 6n. 22, 94n. 46 John of Salisbury 133n. 2 John Paul II (Pope) 193 Jones, Emrys 183–6 Jüngel, Eberhard 125–6 Kant, Immanuel 7n. 25, 25, 79 Kermode, Sir Frank 183–4 Kerr, Fergus 61n. 66 Khomeini, Ruhollah (Ayatollah) 27, 33, 38n. 67 Kim, Seyoon 4n. 12 Krause, Sharon 137–8 Lactantius 143 Lash, Nicholas 42–3, 45, 190n. 16 Lasserre, Jean 152, 152n. 70 Lincoln, Andrew 5n. 16 Locke, John 7n. 25, 8n. 31, 9n. 35, 20 Lucan 136 Luther, Martin 20, 20n. 13, 67n. 82, 91, 121, 123n. 71, 125–6, 155, 173n. 39, 184 Luz, Ulrich 90n. 32, 91n. 33 MacIntyre, Alasdair 8n. 28, 10n. 36, 187n. 9 Marcuse, Herbert 125 Marshall, Bruce D. 93n. 42, 190 McFadyen, Alistair I. 25n. 34 McVeigh, Timothy 31 Meister Eckhardt 152 Middleton, Paul 144n. 34 Milton, John 130 Moltmann, Jürgen 146n. 45 Musurillo, Herbert 159

207

Nietzsche, Friedrich 7n. 25, 18, 22–3, 37n. 65, 189 Nussbaum, Martha Craven 13, 41, 46, 49–53, 49n. 19, 49n. 22, 50n. 26, 52n. 34, 53n. 35, 59, 61n. 66, 62–3, 65, 72, 174, 185n. 7, 192 Nygren, Anders 153n. 74 O’Donovan, Oliver 45n. 16, 83, 87, 89, 94–5, 153n. 74, 193 Origen 6, 6n. 18, 87, 89, 139, 141–3, 145n. 38, 149n. 60, 152–4, 166 Perkins, Judith 88 Perpetua (martyr) 126, 138–9, 144, 145n. 42 Peter of Celle 133n. 2 Pimlott, Stephen 14, 183–4 Pionius (martyr) 62, 178–9 Plato 49, 60, 137, 139 Polycarp (martyr) 87n. 17, 111, 144, 173n. 39, 188 Rad, Gerhard von 45n. 14, 54n. 36 Rahner, Karl 62n. 69, Raine, Craig 135n. 6, 184 Ratzinger, Joseph (Benedict XVI) 38n. 70, 85n. 12 Rawls, John 81n. 10 Reventlow, Henning 44n. 13 Ricoeur, Paul 7–8, 7n. 25, 9n. 35, 10n. 36, 125n. 75, 160–1, 161n. 9, 186n. 8 Rorty, Richard 13, 38n. 69, 41, 75, 79–81, 83, 94–6, 96n. 51, 103n. 4, 104, 104n. 7, 193 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 18, 20, 25, 137n. 12, Rushdie, Salman 3n. 9, 11, 17, 25–40, 27n. 39, 28n. 41, 28n. 45, 29n. 46, 33n. 55, 38n. 67, 41, 49n. 20, 82, 85n. 12, 90, 115, 129n. 90, 152n. 72, 156, 162, 183, 187, 191–2 Ruskin, John 22n. 23 Sanctus (martyr) 112, 122 Schrag, Calvin 7, 8n. 29 Scruton, Roger 14, 41, 99, 103–7, 104n. 6, 105n. 12, 111, 129 Secunda (martyr) 1–2, 114 Shakespeare, William 100n. 1 Shelton, W. Brian 85n. 13

208

NAME INDEX

Slane, Craig A. 4–5, 108n. 20 Smith, Lacey Baldwin 38n. 66, 162 Smith, Warren J. 12n. 41 Sophocles 50 Stockton, Ian 145n. 43 Straw, Carole 89, 145, 150n. 62 Taylor, Charles 11–12, 17–26, 17n. 1, 18n. 4, 19n. 5, 20n. 11, 20n. 13, 21n. 16, 22n. 22, 26n. 52, 31, 37–40, 38n. 67, 41, 53n. 35, 62n. 71, 104, 137, 150n. 63, 173, 183, 187, 191–2 Tertullian 6, 108–9, 134n. 5, 139–40, 149, 150n. 64, 154n. 77, 187 Trilling, Lionel 18, 22n. 23, 23n. 25

Trites, Allison 4 Tyndale, William 64, 83, 90–6, 193 Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 42n. 2, 168n. 26, 189–90 Walzer, Michael 137–8 Williams, Rowan 6n. 20, 30, 70, 88n. 22 Woodruff, Paul B. 50n. 26 Wright, N.T. (Tom) 57n. 44, 65n. 75 Wyschorogrod, Edith 23n. 26 Yeats, William Butler 66n. 77 Žižek, Slavoj 120n. 60

Scripture Index

2 Samuel 1 116 1:18-27 116 7:10-11 67 18:4 116 21:7 116

Old Testament Genesis 2:16-17 169 3 166n. 16, 180 3:1 169 3:4-5 169 4:17 66 6:5 66 9:1 66 11:4 66 12 66 16 113n. 37 18:18 122 22:1-19 176

Ezra 3:11-13

56

Nehemiah 8 56n. 42 Esther 1-10 86n. 15

Exodus 14:12 54 16:3 54 19-20 169 20:11-12 63

Psalms 2 122 2:1-2 68 3:3 68, 155 8 58, 157 19:14 68 27 71n. 93 31:15 177 37 57n. 46 40:1-3 125n. 73 46 67 59:16 68 95 58, 167 137:1-4 55

Numbers 11:4-6 54 13:31-33 67 20:1-8 54 Deuteronomy 5:12-15 63 7:12-18 63, 113 8:11ff 63

Ecclesiastes 2:24 64 12:14 64

Judges 16 27 1 Samuel 24 116 26 116

Isaiah 40:1ff 56 51:17, 22 153 61 57 209

SCRIPTURE INDEX

210

Jeremiah 5:28 64n. 73 6:14 69 8:11 69 31:31-34 55 Ezekiel 10:1-22 68 16:49-50 64n. 73 40-48 55 43-48 68 43:1-12 55 Daniel 2 85 2:46-49 86 3 86n. 16 3-6 86 Joel 2:14

122

Amos 4:1 64 New Testament Matthew 2:13-18 57 4:1-10 57 4:10 171 5:1-12 177 5:10-12 142 5:11-12 93, 177 5:16 148 6:7-10 177 6:13 171 6:19-21 177 6:25-34 176 10:1-42 83 10:16 71, 84, 108 10:18f 6n. 23 10:20 84 10:24-25 84 10:34 84 10:36 84 10:42 84 16:19 133 16:13-20 90–1 18:18 91 19:27-29 142 22:16-21 109 24:14 93n. 41

25:1ff 69, 145 25:31-46 93 25:45 83 26:39 171 26:41 145, 171 28:18-20 87, 93 Mark 4:20 65 8:36 153 10:29-45 153–4 12:13-17 109 14:32-52 124 14:36 153 14:48 125 15:6-30 146 Luke 4:13 171 4:16-20 65 7:34 65 8:17-19 116 9:22 175n. 42 9:58 65 14:16-24 65 14:26-27 65 17:28-32 57 18:18-34 65 18:28-30 65n. 76 18:31-34 68 20:21-25 109 21 117 John 1:16 146 13:34-35 119 13:36-38 117–18 14:26 118 15:13 119, 121n. 65 15:13-15 116, 117 15:18-20 118 15:26-27 118 18:36 109 19:35 5 20:21-23 90–1 21:19 118n. 52 Acts 1:8 4, 71 4:24 179n. 55 5:29 97 7 69, 179n. 57

SCRIPTURE INDEX

Acts (continued) 7:58-60 5 20:31 171n. 37 22 4 22:25-29 122 Romans 1:1-5 85 1:18ff 154 2:6-10 154 2:7 154 5 45, 169n. 30 5:1-11 117 6 6n. 18 6:1-10 5 6:3 153 8:17 173n. 39 8:18 141 9-11 122 12 84 12:1-2 117 12:17ff 85 13 83, 84, 87, 93, 96 13:1 84 13:4 85 13:7 109n. 23, 138 16 120 1 Corinthians 1-2 146 1:31 146 2:11 60 4:1 147 4:1-21 147 9:25 149 10:11 45 10:13 168n. 24 12:23 138 13:3 88 15 149 15:28 146n. 45 16:13 171n. 37 2 Corinthians 3 92 4:8-10 5 4:17 141 5:18 126 6:4-10 147 12:19 120

211

Galatians 3:18 122 4:26 58n. 48 5:14 138 Ephesians 2 122 2:8-10 126 3:19 146 6:2 151 Philippians 2:3 138 Colossians 1:19-20 178 1:24 173n. 39 2:15 181n. 61 3:3 69 1 Thessalonians 5:3 69, 69n. 84 1 Timothy 5:17 138 5:17 151n. 68 2 Timothy 2:5 142 2:8 90 4:8 155 Hebrews 1:1-3 178 2:7 157 2:10 157 2:17-18 167 3:19 167 4:14-15 168 5:7-10 125 11-12 61 11:13 58 11:17-19 176n. 45 11:39-40 178 12:22-23 58, 71n. 92 James 3:14-16 1 Peter 1:1-2 71 1:6 110

138

212

1:13 110 1:17 110 1:23 110 2:9 111 2:11 110 2:13 111 2:17 111, 151n. 68 3:1 111 3:15 111 3:16 111 4:12 172, 173n. 39 4:12-13 110 1 John 4:1ff 117

SCRIPTURE INDEX

Revelation 1:1 113 1:3 113 1:5 5 6:9-11 196 7:9 122 12:4 181, 13:10 113 17:6 113 19:2 113 19:15-16 122 21:26 122 22:2 122 22:10 113

Subject Index

Entries in bold refer to lengthy references to the subject. action, actions 2, 9–10, 14, 43, 79, 99, 108n. 20, 116, 135, 145, 159, 161, 165, 190, 193 divine 115n. 49, 120, 129, 175–6, 175n. 43, 179, 181 honourable 136, 145 ‘passive’ 99, 107, 110, 115, 123–7, 129, 165, 193 political 13–14, 100–3, 110, 129, 184 responsible 126–8 ascension 65, 70, 70n. 85, 70n. 89 atonement 167

martyrdom as imitation of 5, 42–3, 45, 65, 128, 143, 145–6, 165, 185, 190 desire 24, 47, 52, 57, 65–6, 80, 118, 135, 137–8, 148, 152–6, 186n. 8, 189 drama 12, 41, 46, 61, 111, 161, 161n. 9, 163n. 13, 164, 173n. 40, 183–6, 190 eschatology 68n. 84, 192 faith 5, 32–9, 50, 52–62, 72, 87, 109, 115, 123n. 71, 125–6, 141, 143, 146, 152, 155, 166, 169–73, 174n. 42, 177, 188, 192, 194–5 friendship 47, 49, 51, 101–2, 101n. 2, 107, 115–20, 129, 191

Christology 165, 167–8 church, ecclesiology 3, 13, 45, 58, 61–2, 69, 71, 71n. 93, 83, 94–5, 118–20, 150n. 66, 189–90, 193 Augustine on 87–9, 194 honouring martyrs in 143–4 martyrdom as sign of 123n. 71, 195 martyrdom as seed of 187 power of the keys 91–2 and state power, nationalism 78, 82, 89–91, 94–6, 99, 102–3, 105–7, 110, 114–15, 121–2, 128–9, 162n. 10, 193 creation 62–4, 66, 146n. 46, 168–9, 175, 179 goodness of 52, 63, 142, 178n. 53, 180, 192 renewal of 70, 178, 181

heavenly rewards 13–14, 131–2, 135, 140–3, 152–5, 159, 194 in Islam 140–1 hermeneutics 42–5, 43n. 8, 186n. 8 honour 3, 13–14, 108–11, 120, 122, 131, 135–9, 140, 143–57, 168, 194 identity, self-identity 7, 10, 13–14, 17–18, 30–3, 38, 63, 99, 120, 191 Christian 88, 107, 183 identity-politics 28n. 42 and victimhood 30–1 Islam, martyrdom in 33, 140–1 justiﬁcation 155–6

death, dying 3, 5, 15, 27, 29n. 45, 33n. 45, 35–6, 51, 61–2, 62n. 69, 71n. 93, 88–9, 105, 111, 131, 133, 136, 139–40, 144–5, 150, 156, 159, 162, 172, 177–81 death of Christ 3, 6, 68, 70, 83,89, 117, 128, 143, 146–7, 178, 181, 188, 195

literature and theology 9n. 35, 49n. 12, 19, 185 memory 6n. 21, 8n. 31, 46, 55, 59–63, 115, 133, 136, 178, 180 mission 4, 75, 83, 87, 90, 93–6, 104 213

214

SUBJECT INDEX

Murder in the Cathedral 12–14, 46, 124, 161, 186n. 8, 195 performances of 13, 183–6 performed in postwar Germany 46n. 17, 163n. 12 narrative 8–9, 9n. 35, 12, 30, 35, 40, 44–6, 59, 95, 121, 159, 178n. 53, 183, 186, 190, 195 narrative logic 14, 160–3, 165, 170n. 30, 173, 173n. 40, 179, 181, 186, 195 nostalgia 8, 19, 48, 55, 59, 62 power 2, 13, 31, 49, 66, 69n. 84, 75–86, 89–90, 96, 99–115, 124, 127, 132–3, 135, 144, 148, 162, 169–73, 174n. 42, 187–90, 195 clavis potentiae 75, 78, 90–5, 193 providence 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 31, 44–5, 72, 85, 87–8, 101, 112, 124, 129, 145, 148, 160–1, 163, 168, 170, 173–81, 174n. 42, 186, 192, 194–6

responsibility 75, 124–9, 168, 194 as Verantwornung 128, 168n. 25 scripture 42–6, 63, 71, 71n. 93, 85n. 13, 94, 96, 156, 159, 172, 190n. 16, 193 self 2–6, 12–15 and authenticity 17–18, 22, 24, 26, 38, 40, 191 deﬁnition of 7–11 questions of 10–11, 18, 45, 190 Spirit, Holy Spirit 60, 65, 70–1, 84, 91, 94–5, 118–20, 122, 123n. 71, 138, 148, 170, 173, 178, 188, 190 suicide 27n. 37, 50, 136, 139, 143, 162–3 suicide bombing 2, 25, 36, temptation 3, 12–14, 40–1, 47, 89, 160– 75, 179–80, 184–5, 187, 189, 192–5 terrorism 25–7, 156 witness 3–6, 11, 14–15, 28, 42, 49, 52, 62, 65, 70, 76, 81–96, 83n. 11, 112, 115, 118–22, 143, 147, 151, 156, 163–4, 167, 173, 178–80, 187–96