nora's loophole

i've been thinking a lot about samson lately. today in class we were discussing nora helmer (our old doll house-door slamming friend), and an interesting comparison between these characters made itself known.

as we discussed the Christian response to nora's shattering door slam, i brought up the argument that our problem is not really with nora, but with ibsen. he's created this deterministic world where nora has just two choices:

1. stay (live with an abusive husband who treats you like a plaything, destroy your children by your presence--via determinisim, and destroy yourself in the process)

2. go (leave the safety of a comfortable home, destroy your children by your absence--they're already ruined anyway via determinisim, and destroy yourself in the process)

both pretty appealing options, eh (thanks for that henrick, old fellow)? but here is what we know: "there hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." ha, ha! take *that* ibsen! there are more than two options nora! there is a way to bear this temptation.

which brings me to samson. as he stands in that philistine hall after all that mess with the hair (ibsen would be apt to call deterministic--circumstances deemed it inescapable after all), the end seems inevitable doesn't it? now if ibsen had written this story what would happen? samson would have two choices:

1. live (blind, weak, out of sorts with GOD, enslaved)

2. die (blind, weak, out of sorts with GOD, enslaved)

but GOD (He's good like that) gave him a third: a way to bear it. death yes, but the death of faith (of the hebrews 11 type). "let me die with the philistines!"

ibsen take note. nora look up. in the words of torvald, "the most wonderful thing of all" is more than possible. it's promised.