 |
 |
Dear Steffen, Please do not read theological assumptions into my note. I did not offer my view on theology. I questioned the shallow and inappropriate declaration of last week's events as "a response from God." To assert "what happened is a response from GOD" is an indefensible claim. How did the author learn that this deed was a "response from God"? Did God send the message by email or use a priestly intermediary? Was message rendered in the entrails of a sheep or whispered into the author's ear? If God did speak to our colleague, are we to expect more revelations here? If God spoke, I would be curious to know which God has been speaking. Is it the God of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who believe that civil libertarians and critical management scholars have brought America into divine disfavor? Is it the God of Osama bin Ladin, preparing to purge the world in fire and wash it in the blood of unbelievers? Is it, perhaps, the response of a minor god designated with a lower-case "g," or a small-time Baal thirsting for blood sacrifice? No idea of God - fixed or otherwise - should be inferred from my note. I simply find theophany a poor explanation for the terrorist attacks of this past week. While I quoted the Bible with hermeneutical intent, I did not intend all four modes of interpretation. The passage was not selected for an historical reading or a vision of faith. I intended moral application and anagogy. A Bible quote is an appropriate response to a post that asserts divine will. That a scholar is able to quote the Bible should suggest cultural literacy rather than "a very clear fixed idea of god." I could have quoted the sermons of Dogen, the Buddhist sutras, or Shakespeare. I might have paraphrased the last sermon of the prophet Muhammad on the subject of false prophets, but I am less confident in my understanding of Islam. If you believe that theological speculation has a role here, proceed. If so, I propose distinguishing between theological speculation and prophetic claims. I did not ask about theological speculation in a literal sense. The question was mildly sarcastic. Vareta was not engaged in theological speculation. Vareta stated the will of God by proclaiming that a human act was "a response from God." This proclamation, rather than my hermeneutical probe, suggests "a very clear fixed idea of god." It is one thing to speculate on God's intentions. It is another to announce them with the matter-of-fact confidence of a network newscaster. Vareta and Jerry Falwell would be wise to read Job 38: 2. Ken -- Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Knowledge Management Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University