AnswerNijenhuis

8/9/2019 AnswerNijenhuis

1/14

The Bahai Faith for Modern Man:

A delayed answer for Nijenhuis

By Daniel Grolin

Abstract: In 1973 Journal of Ecumentical Studies (vol. 10, nr. 3) published an article by John

Nijenhuis entitled Bahai: World Faith for Modern Man? In it, while praising its statedprinciples, he raised three issue which he felt ran counter the openness of these principles. With

well over three decades passed it may seem too late to answer an article which when it waspublished engendered no reply. However, Nijenhuis issues are worthy of a reply and present an

opportunity to consider what the Baha Faith has to offer the ecumenical and inter-religious

discourse. The approach of this response will be to look at Christianitys history for precisely thethings that Nijenhuis finds problematic with the Bahai Faith. The intent here is not to show that

Christianity is as bad in those respects as the Bahai Faith, but to show that given the history ofChristianity Nijenhuis concerns are understandable. Proceeding with this understanding we will

look at the Bahai Faith and why these concerns may not be justifiable in its case. With an eye on

the history of Donatist controversy we will propose that there is a way out of the apparent impasseof current ecumenical efforts. We shall conclude by looking at how the Bahai community has

contributed to inter-faith relations in recent years.

Bahaullah, the prophet founder of the Bahai Faith, repeatedly admonished his followers to

Consort ye then with the followers of all religions1. In his brief book of communal precepts this

injunction is found twice, once in connection with the abolishment of ritual impurity and once as acommandment in itself:

Consort with all religions with amity and concord, that they may inhale from you the

sweet fragrance of God. Beware lest amidst men the flame of foolish ignorance

overpower you. All things proceed from God and unto Him they return. He is the source

of all things and in Him all things are ended.2

Such a cordial relation with members of other religion are not only to blot out Bahais own

ignorance, but also a means of contributing. Thus Bahaullah advises his followers:

Consort with all men, O people of Baha, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If yebe aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it

with them in a language of utmost kindliness and goodwill. If it be accepted, if it fulfill

its purpose, your object is attained. If anyone should refuse it, leave him unto himself,

and beseech God to guide him. Beware lest ye deal unkindly with him. A kindly tongue

is the lodestone of the hearts of men. It is the bread of the spirit, it clotheth the words

with meaning, it is the fountain of the light of wisdom and understanding.3

It should therefore not be a surprise that the Bahais feel obligated to interfaith work, not merely as

something abstracted from a broad ethical framework, but as a clear and explicit duty to the

communities of faiths.

1 Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 47.2 Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 71.

3 Baha'u'llah,Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 14.


2/14

When Nijenhuis originally initiated the dialogue he did so with concern, but also with praise.

Recounting of Bahai history will inevitable be revisited here as well as some of the Bahai

principles which he felt oblige to present as the attractive aspect of the Bahai Faith. However, since

1973 there have been a considerable number of publication about the Bahai Faith, its history and

tenets, so that readers unfamiliar with the Bahai Faith should rather turn to these rather than

whatever inadequately could be presented here.

We will now proceed to look at Nijenhuis concerns. The premise of this articles approach is that

these concerns are raised with genuine worry for what he perceives as weaknesses. Advise of this

sort is drawn from experience and Nijenhuis studies as a Roman Catholic of his own faiths history

has provided him with a wealth of experience from which he can share. To better engage both that

experience and these concerns we shall look at Christian history and its lessons before turning to the

Bahai Faith and its applicability.

Revelational fundamentalism

Nijenhuis first concern is formulated briefly the following way:

On the one hand Baha'i holds that prophets arise and reveal teachings according to the

needs and possibilities of the times. On the other hand, Bahai takes Baha'u'llah to the

definitive and final prophet. Thus, the alleged "progressive" nature of revelation in

Baha'i seems to many observers far more closed than open.4

This statement will undoubtedly be confusing to many Bahais since Bahaullah is quite clear that

he is no way the final prophet and explicit about the authority of that future prophet to abolish

Bahai laws and establishing new one (which in Bahai theology is the hallmark of prophets). Whilethis confusion is understandable, a closer look at what Nijenhuis later expansion on this theme

reveals that he is aware of this and that his concept of prophethood is steeped in a particularly

Christian conception.

Nijenhuis actually subsumes three rather different concerns under this formulation only one of

which strictly relates to this issue. We will therefore deal with each of these separately.

Bahaullah as inter-religious fulfillment of prophecy

Bahaullah is presented in Bahai texts as the fulfillment of prophecy. Not just Muslim and

Christian, but also Jewish, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and Hindu. Nijenhuis objects:

If Christianity could have been accused of imperialistic arrogance towards other

religions, then in parallel fashion the Bahai should be charged with an all-devouring

annexation of the religions of the past. The incorporation is performed in a spirit of

tolerance reminiscent of broad-liberal Hindu mentality. But precisely therefore the

Bahais would do well to ponder the following statement, applying it to their own

doctrine of manifestations:

We cannot remove front its setting in Hindu thought the doctrine ofavatar(say, inthe case of Krishna) and study it along side the Christian doctrine of incarnations

4 Nijenhuis, John 'Bah': World Faith for Modern Man' inJournal of Ecumenical Studies vol. 10 nr. 3, p. 532.


3/14

as if the two were identical so far as their significance for a believer in either of

the to o religions is concerned.5

What is this imperialistic arrogance that has been charged against Christianity and which the

Bahai Faith apparently finds itself even more liable?

This concern is a new one, arising from this and the previous centurys increased awareness of therole of the West as Christian imperial power and its devastating effect on the colonialized.

Inevitably the variegated movement behind post-colonial studies has had its effect on Christian

ecumenical discourse. Thus, for example, it is that Chester Gillis can with some justification state:

Inclusivism maintains that all persons are dependent for salvation upon Christ. An

example of inclusive theology is in the Letter of Paul to the Romans: Then as one

mans [Adam] trespass led to condemnation for all persons, one mans [Jesus Christ] act

of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all persons (5:18). No matter what

formulation inclusivism takes, and there are many, it always concludes with Christ as

the universal and only savior, co-opting all independent forms of salvation. This, in my

judgment, constitutes a form Christian imperialism, because it imposes Christ as savioron persons regardless of their own beliefs about salvation or their own religious

tradition.6

Such a concern,along with even more severe forms of Christian imperialism,7 are more meaningful

in cases where the religion is backed by imperial power. Moreover, it overlooks a crucial

distinction. When the Bahais claim Bahaullah as the fulfillment of another religions prophecy, it

does not annul the value of that other religion. Rather it invites the members of that religion to view

the Bahai Faith through its own traditions. Nijenhuis cannot quite see the Bahais imperialists and

amends by saying that this is tolerance reminiscent of broad-liberal Hindu mentality. But

toleration plays no part in this theological enterprise. Tolerance is something that one has for a

foreign object which must be endured for the sake of peace. The Bahai Faith posits that these

religions are inherently from the same origin and are not foreign to each other.

Millennialism

Another issue raised by Nijenhuis that would probably have puzzled many Bahais that the Bahai

Faith has millennialist traits.

Secondly the original idea of progressive revelations is, so to speak, marred b the

common coloring of millennialism. Bahais regard the following statement byBaha'u'llah as an essential article of faith:

Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere to expiration of a full

thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor.

Christian theology is generally suspicious millennialism, not so much because

historically the latter has been associated with revolutionary social reform movements,

but because theologians reject the idea of God acting in history according to specific

5 Ibid., 540.6 Gillis, ChesterPluralism: a new paradigm for theology p. 21.7 Examples of such can be seen in missionary activities in colonized countries such as India (see Clifford Manshardt,

What Will Succeed Religious Imperialism? in The Journal of Religion, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 526-543).


4/14

periodicity.8

Some familiar with Christian theology, particularly of the Dispensationalist branch, will probably

object that this is true of Christian theology generally. For the sake of argument let us then

modify that to say that it is true of some modernist schools of theology. This is surely true across

amongst Protestants as well as Catholics. This theological tension between between modernists and

traditionalists is surely at the heart of the pronouncement against timetables. The modernist viewhas the benefit of centuries of the failure of time predictions. These were not only to be found in in

recent millenialist movements (predominantly Protestant), but is also a view amongst the Church

Fathers.9 With the poor track record modern dismissal is surely understandable.

Yet there are certainly more disconcerting aspects to millennialism than the idea that God might

have a timetable. Feminist Tina Pippin in herApocalyptic Bodies: The Biblical End of the World inText and Image provides a devastating criticism of apocalyptic violence. That said, Nijenhuis surelymisunderstands both the passage that he quotes as well as Bahai eschatology.

The passage that he quotes provides not the time of the next prophet, but the minimum time. Why is

this significant? Because the timetable is ultimately dependent on humanitys needs, not Gods. Athousand years after Bahaullahs revelation is the minimum time it will take humankind to be

properly influenced by it.

The appearance of a prophet is a sort of eschaton (end), but it is never apocalyptic, always the same

in nature. A prophet is born, receives his revelation and proclaims it, is subject to tribulations and

finally dies. All prophetic or apocalyptic passages are interpreted (mostly symbolically) by Bahais

to refer into such a framework.

Smooth or leaps and bounds

Nijenhuis raises his final point about progressive revelation is that is not truly progressive as the

phrase seems to suggest.

The new emphasis in Christian theology on revelation as an ongoing process would

seem to express much better Gods way of acting in history than the Baha'i idea of

revelation by leaps and bounds10

This claim is hard to answer given lack of argument, reference or substantiation. First of all it is

difficult to uncover what exactly this new emphasis on ongoing revelation refers to. Catholic

theology appears to espouse the idea of special revelation and general revelation, but while thegeneral revelation might be said to be ongoing, there is nothing to suggest that it is in any way

or form progressive.11 It is perhaps also worth noting that Bahaullah also endorses the idea of

general revelation.12

8 Nijenhuis, John 'Bah': World Faith for Modern Man' inJournal of Ecumenical Studies vol. 10 nr. 3,p. 540.

9 Although the Revelation of John should be clear enough, there are plenty of millennial expectations in 1

Thessalonians and the Synoptics. Montanist are an early example with Tertullian supporting it, Lactantius,

Augustine cautious about the common expectation of the time to see Romes fall as a millennial sign. While modern

theologians who are uneasy with millennialism can refer to Origen and those that followed a non-literal

interpretation of the apocalyptic images of the New Testament, the view was present even late in the Patristic period,

present for example with Gregory the Great. (See McGuckin, John A.A-Z of Patristic Theology, pp. 123-4.)

10 Nijenhuis, John 'Bah': World Faith for Modern Man' inJournal of Ecumenical Studies vol. 10 nr. 3,p. 540.11 See for example Eamonn Conway A God Embarrassed at the prospect of possession: Exploring Divine

Revelation in Anne Hession & Patricia KieranExploring Theology: Making sense of Catholic Tradition, pp. 72-89.

12 In the Lawh-I-Hikmat Bahaullah affirms that Nature is God's Will and is its expression in and through the


5/14

It is also difficult to understand what data he is using to determine Gods way of acting in history.

Does history interpret itself so that Nijenhuis is able to compare meta-histories?

While he may think Bahai meta-history inferior with its leaps and bounds, it does have

significant arguments in its favor which are revealed in general revelation. We can observe it in

nature. For example, in evolution we see a progression, but it does so in small ways untilcircumstance requires a shift in paradigm, or in science, ontologies and their theories may hold and

be refined until discovery requires a shift in paradigm. If evolution of nature and knowledge reflect

Gods Will, then this must be regarded as more than haphazard analogies of His self-revelation.

Bahai meta-history proposes that from dispensation (i.e. period in which the prophets message

holds sway) to dispensation there is refinement (through general revelation), but it is only through

the appearance of a prophet (i.e. special revelation) that there can be a paradigm shift.

Considering that God is the author of nature, would it not seem natural that this too would reflect

God's way of acting in history?

Dealing with dissenters

Next Nijenhuis turns to something closer to the questions raised by ecumenical studies.

Whatever Baha'i may hold in theory about dissent within the community in practice

there seems little room for pluralism. Hence, Baha'i vision of a worldwide unified

mankind seems illusory.13

What he refers to is the issue of Covenant-breakers. The term differs from the dissenters that likely

lurks behind Nijenhuis concerns. He mentions briefly that Bahais avoided the violent practices ofan Inquisition.14Indeed dissenters have been treated poorly, and the Inquisition, while certainly the

most well-organized and prolific persecution of dissenters, was not the first violence perpetrated

against a heresy. Donatist of the time of Augustine were persecuted and compelled. What modern

Christian does not look back at these events with shame?

So are Bahais the same, albeit in a milder version? There is a crucial distinction, aside from the

non-violent nature of the exclusion of Covenant breakers, which relates to the very nature of the

dissension. Christianity has dealt hardly with these theological dissenters, who have been branded

heretics. The Bahais. however, are theological pluralist. Covenant-breaking is, one might say, an

ecclesiastical issue, not a theological one.

Paul sought, indeed fought, hard to create ecclesiastical unity, yet in his time it seems to have been

too late. Christianity was fragmented only two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. Paul contented

with fractures in the Eucharist, between poor and rich,15gentile and Jew16, and schism over baptism

in accordance with the apostle who had performed it.17

Yet the Christianity in which Paul acted had never been unified ecclesiastically. Paul conceived of

an ecclesiastical hierarchy in which the apostles are at the top, and the prophets after those .18

contingent world. (Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 141.)13 Nijenhuis, John 'Bah': World Faith for Modern Man' in Journal of Ecumenical Studies vol. 10 nr. 3,p. 532.

14 Nijenhuis, John 'Bah': World Faith for Modern Man' inJournal of Ecumenical Studies vol. 10 nr.3,p. 541.

15 1 Corinthians 11:17-2216 Galatians 2

17 1 Corinthians 1:10-16

18 1 Corinthians 12:27-31


6/14

Apostles were, as the title implies, sent, and would have been itinerant.19 Aside from this we detect

from Pauls argumentation that who was qualified to be an apostles was not clearly defined. His

arguments marshalled for his right to a top position in the hierarchy seem to evoke no certain

criteria. Paul is familiar with a Jerusalem hierarchy which is headed by pillars, 20 but he did not

accept their leadership and had good reason to feel betrayed by them.

Even with Christianity divided there was the makings of harsh treatment of those who dissentedwith top of the hierarchy. This act, alluded to in the saying tradition common to Matthew and

Luke,21was an unforgivable sin, both in this world and the world to come. It was to speak against

the Holy Spirit. The significance of this within the early ecclesiastical hierarchy is made clear by

the Didaches application, of it to testing and examining the prophet who speaks in a spirit.22

Despite Lukes serene depiction of the first Christians in Acts of the Apostles or Eusebian claim that

the godless error of deceitful teachers only started after none of the Apostles still remained,

historians can no longer give this credence.23The reality we see rather is that the body of Christ, to

use Pauls evocative metaphor for the Church, was from the very beginning rent by Christians of the

first generation. The Churchs unity was present only in later generations idealized

conceptualization of its mythic past. Within those early days the author of the letter to the Ephesianswould reflect the strain of theological diversity which would later redefine heresy not as the

creation of parties alone, but formations of theological unorthodoxy. Within his discourse, echoing

Pauline metaphor of body and ecclesia, he admonishes that we may no more be babes, tossed and

borne about by every wind of the teaching, in the sleight of men, in craftiness, unto the artifice of

leading astray.24

If this portrayal seem unduly grim it is not without purpose. It serves to make two points. Firstly,

that Church unity was always from the very beginning an ideal to be pursued and later projected

into an ideal past. Secondly, that despite those ideals there was never a unified Church, and to date

it remains as much a fata morgana as ever it was.

Not so with the Bahai Faith. However much Nijenhuis might dislike Bahai practices with respect

to Covenant-breakers, the Bahai community has clearly succeeded to do what Christians have

longed for; it has remained united. It practices its ideal of unity in diversity, with diversity of

thought, but unity of ecclesia. It is uncompromising in its maintaining its unity, for unity is its core

ideal reflected in all its principles.

A magnified cult of the founder

Under the final header Nijenhuis raises two issues. In his abstract he summarizes it as follows

Baha'u'llah's self-proclamation as "sovereign Lord of all" and as the one inaugurating

the final and definitive era, raises fundamental questions. Baha'i's understanding of the

prophet's role, viz., as the one through whom God literally speaks in a direct andunambiguous way, contrasts strongly with the more common contemporary Christian

19 Studies of Didache

20 Galatians 2:9

21 Q (Luke 12:10 Matthew 12:31) here provides a tradition that resembles somewhat Mark 3:28-29 and Thomas 44.

Commentators like Eric Franklin (John Barton and John Muddiman The Oxford Bible Commentary, pp. 944-5)

accept that this refers to Christian denial of those who reveal by their possession of the Spirit.

22 Didache 11:7.23 Eusebius of CeasareaEcclesiastical History, 3:32:8. It is no small irony that Eusebius himself would later become

branded as a heretic or at the very least suspect.

24 Ephesians 4:14


7/14

view of the prophet.25

His first point is that he feels a distaste by the lack of humility of Bahaullahs self-proclamation.

His second point returns to the nature of what he perceives as revelational fundamentalism. These

points will be addressed separately.

Bahaullahs self-proclamation

Nijenhuis acknowledges that it is not entirely as simple as that, and that these are not boast but

should be understood within their theological framework. As quick as he is to point out statements

that seem self-proclaiming, as reluctant he admits that in Baha'u'llah we see a combination of what

could be termed personal humility and revelational self-importance.26

It is not strange that this should be something of note for a Christian theologian. Ever since the

advent of Form Criticism theologians have been confronted with a new clarity about the difference

between Jesus proclamation of the kingdom of God and the early Christian proclamation of Jesus,the Son of God. In the face of Jesus apparent lack of self-proclamation, a self-effacement in the

proclamation of the kingdom of GodJesus must appear humble next to early Christian proclamation

of him. Surely this view could be seen in the New Testament. Paul, possibly citing an earlier

tradition, speaks of Jesus as being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became

obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.27In the tradition of the church it is seen perhaps

most poignantly in the life and teachings of Francis of Assisi.

Unfortunately, matters are not so simple. The juxtaposition of two sayings about the relationship of

Jesus and Bahaullah to Solomon respectively does not give us a meaningful gauge of them. A

good synchronic reading should always be accomplished with diachronic perspectives.

Did Jesus not proclaim himself out of humility? Of Moses we are told that when he came out to the

children of Israel, after God had spoken to him, his visage shone so that he donned a veil.28 Gods

glory is veiled so as to not blind onlookers. If the prophets expose that glory they do so only to the

extent that people are able to sustain it.

Bahaullah explains it thusly:

Know of a certainty that in every Dispensation the light of Divine Revelation hath been

vouchsafed unto men in direct proportion to their spiritual capacity. Consider the sun.

How feeble its rays the moment it appeareth above the horizon. How gradually its

warmth and potency increase as it approacheth its zenith, enabling meanwhile allcreated things to adapt themselves to the growing intensity of its light. How steadily it

declineth until it reacheth its setting point. Were it, all of a sudden, to manifest the

energies latent within it, it would, no doubt, cause injury to all created things.... In like

manner, if the Sun of Truth were suddenly to reveal, at the earliest stages of its

manifestation, the full measure of the potencies which the providence of the Almighty

hath bestowed upon it, the earth of human understanding would waste away and be

consumed; for men's hearts would neither sustain the intensity of its revelation, nor be

able to mirror forth the radiance of its light. Dismayed and overpowered, they would

25 Nijenhuis, John 'Bah': World Faith for Modern Man' in Journal of Ecumenical Studies vol. 10 nr. 3,p. 532.26 Nijenhuis, John 'Bah': World Faith for Modern Man' inJournal of Ecumenical Studies vol. 10 nr. 3, p. 544.27 Philippians 2:8.

28 Exodus 34.


8/14

cease to exist.29

To the extent that Jesus was humble, one might say, it was not a display of virtue, but a blessing on

his interlocutors. A restraining of the glory that they could not bear.

Yet seeing Jesus as humble is not without problem. Historians debate the reason that Jesus was

executed, but the gospels provide one answer. Blasphemy. If we are to credit this tradition we mustsurely conclude that Jesus was not unanimously viewed by his contemporaries as humble, but quite

the contrary for claiming a station too exalted.30 Expressions of humility and arrogance are not to be

easily judged outside their cultural matrices. In Mark (2:5-7) we are told that Jesus proclamation of

the forgiveness of sin was considered by a scribe to be blasphemy. Jesus does not evade the charge

of hubris by making it less, but by claiming that he has proven the power to speak on Gods behalf.

After a decade of exile in Baghdad Bahaullah was summoned to Constantinople. Years later he

would recall his brief stay there in a lengthy epistle addressed to one of his most vociferous

opponents, how Whenever high dignitaries of Persia came to that city [Constantinople] they would

exert themselves to the utmost soliciting at every door such allowances and gifts as they might

obtain. Of himself he states This Wronged One, however, if He hath done nothing that wouldredound to the glory of Persia, hath at least acted in a manner that could in no wise disgrace it. 31

Refraining from this behavior, it might surprise some to realize, was not pleasing to Ottoman

officials. Soliciting from them would have placed Bahaullah in their debt and ensconced him

comfortably within the hierarchy of Ottoman society. Staying aloof, which was how his actions

were perceived, made him vulnerable to the further machinations of Persian officials. One

specifically, the Persian Ambassador, Bahaullah credits with his eventual banishment to the prison

city of Akka, though he proclaims the Persian envoy was so faithful in his service to his

Government that dishonesty played no part.32 Yet Bahaullah goes on to place the reaction to his

behavior squarely withing the honor-shame social structure. He explains This Wronged One hath,

at all times, aimed and striven to exalt and advance the interests of both the government and the

people, not to elevate His own station. A number of men have, now, gathered others about them, and

have arisen to dishonor this Wronged One.33

Hubris is always a charge that can only be made meaningful within a cultural context and

comparisons across these are always tenuous. For Christ, his self-proclamation, brought the charge

of blasphemy and undoubtedly a more Roman charge to which the gospels only allude, culminating

with the cross. For Bahaullah aloofness and the enduring enmity of the Persian government

brought him to Akka, the Most Great Prison, a place so foul that the air was a death trap for fowls

venturing to overfly it.

A final point worth noting with respect to self-proclamation and humility, is self-designations.Theologians such as Cullmann have sought to gain insights about the New Testaments

proclamation of Jesus by looking at designations.34 Were a similar approach to be applied we would

undoubtedly find that one of the most pervasive self-designations is the one appearing above in the

quotations from theEpistle to the son of the Wolf, namely this Wronged One. This epithet, which

at time is extended to those who followed Bahaullah into exile or persecution in Persia,

undeniably points to his position as one powerless to do aught about the authorities who dealt with

him unfairly and cruelly. The British Orientalist E. G. Browne, one of the few westerners to meet

29 Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 87-8.30 For a thorough investigation of the blasphemy charge read Darrell L. BockBlasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism:

The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65.

31 Baha'u'llah,Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 69.32 Ibid.

33 Baha'u'llah,Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, pp. 69-70.

34 Cullmann, OscarThe Christology of the New Testament.


9/14

with Bahaullah, records the following words from his interview, Thou has come to see a prisoner

and an exile. ... We desire but the good of the world and happiness of the nations; yet they deem us

a stirrer up of strife and sedition worthy of bondage and banishment. ... That all nations should

become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons

of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be

annulled -- what harm is there in this?35

Revelational fundamentalism

Nijenhuis final concern centers once more around the concept of revelation. His concern here is for

what he perceives as revelational fundamentalism, the idea that God literally speaks in a direct

and unambiguous way, through the prophet.

As with millennialism the Bahais find themselves unwillingly dumped into the crossfires on the

battlefield between conservative and liberal Christians. The Fundamentalist creed where the Bible is

viewed as nothing less than the inerrant word of God, language belonging to the discourse thatemerged from the Enlightenment and conservative forces that opposed it in the middle of the

previous century. 36The Bahai Faith, however, has no debt to the fundamentalist movement that

emerged in the Americas decades after the passing of Bahaullah.

The writings of Bahaullah refer to the Word of God as higher and far superior to that which the

senses can perceive, for it is sanctified from any property or substance. It transcendeth the

limitations of known elements and is exalted above all the essential and recognized substances. It

became manifest without any syllable or sound and is none but the Command of God which

pervadeth all created things.37

Like the transcendent God about which nothing can be known or said except as he is made manifestthrough his prophets, the revelation of the transcendent Word of God is made manifest in transient

world in the revelation of the prophet. Yet all human language, being the product of culture, is

transient and can therefore not be identified with the transcendent.

In connection with a question about the lack of records of prophets prior to Adam (who in the

Muslim tradition is regarded as a prophet), Bahaullah briefly reflects on the transient nature of

language.

Consider the differences that have arisen since the days of Adam. The divers and

widely-known languages now spoken by the peoples of the earth were originally

unknown, as were the varied rules and customs now prevailing amongst them.38

Reiterating the traditional narrative of the Bible he points to how the language of revelation was

different from time to time until Arabic became the language of revelation.

Witness, therefore, how numerous and far-reaching have been the changes in language,

speech, and writing since the days of Adam. How much greater must have been the

changes before Him! Our purpose in revealing these words is to show that the one true

God hath, in His all-highest and transcendent station, ever been, and will everlastingly

35 Browne, E. G. (ed.),A Traveller's Narrative, vol. 2, pp. xxxix-xl.36 Mcgrath Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction ed. 2Nd, pp. 141-4.37 Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, pp. 140-1.

38 Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 173.


10/14

continue to be, exalted above the praise and conception of all else but Him.39

Given the clarity with which he contrasts the transcendence of God and the transience of language it

should not be surprising that Bahaullah should make known the limitations of language.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How

vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whosesignificance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be

made!40

While some things can never be placed into the repository of language, some, Bahaullah adds, will

in time be comprehensible. Within the limitations imposed between the transient, but interrelated,

structures of language and learning, development may in time enable the capacity to fathom new

truths.

How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is

come! Even as it hath been said: Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed,

nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timelyutterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it. Of these truths

some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of

Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.41

Each prophet acts and speaks within a social, cultural and linguistic matrix, in which acts and words

are signified. It is within these transient structures, these varied rules and customs now prevailing

amongst a people, that the prophets deeds are deemed hubris and his revelation is comprehended,

resulting in acceptance or rejection.

A lesson from the Augustine and Donatist

During the reign of Roman Emperor Diocletian there was a period of Christian persecution which

triggered a breach in the ranks of the North African church. A sizable contingent of the church was

dissatisfied with the policy of co-operation and started viewing those who complied with state

requirements as traitors. Zealots amongst those dissatisfied also harassed and even beat or mugged

collaborators. At this point no one would have thought of this as a heresy in the sense of an

unorthodoxy. Nevertheless a party did form around the two views of the relation between State and

Church. Sometimes villages would be entirely one party and some would have rival congregations.

The schism, however, produced distinctive ideologies, which slowly came to be formulated intodistinctive theologies.42 It would probably be fair to say that reconciliation was hard won and that its

facilitation through state pressures (now under a Christian emperor) were hardly felicitous for

Donatist (as they were now known) or the Catholics. Augustine, who played no small role in these

events would later argue, however reluctantly, for this involvement. We would not likely find many

today who would be willing to follow Augustines arguments, particularly as these resurfaced in the

Late Middle Ages to bolster policies to compel heretics with torture.

Nevertheless there is a lesson to be learned from Augustines perspectives. Augustine ultimately

39 Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 173-4.

40 Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 176.41 Ibid.

42 Maureen A. Tilley, When Schism Becomes Heresy in Late Antiquity: Developing Doctrinal Deviance in the

Wounded Body of Christ inJournal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 15 nr, 1, pp. 121.


11/14

saw the problem as an ecclesiastical matter. The arguments marshaled all centered around

ecclesiastical implications and more importantly around sacraments.43

At the turn of the fifth century Augustine authored a treaties on baptism, to counter the Donatist

view. In it he argues against the view held by Donatist that the Baptism of non-Donatists was

invalid and that Christians who came to them must needs be rebaptized. Augustine viewed the

baptism to be the possession of the baptized and therefore not subject to removal.

For the sacrament of baptism is what the person possesses who is baptized; and the

sacrament of conferring baptism is what he possesses who is ordained. And as the

baptized person, if he depart from the unity of the Church, does not thereby lose the

sacrament of baptism, so also he who is ordained, if he depart from the unity of the

Church, does not lose the sacrament of conferring baptism. For neither sacrament may

be wronged. If a sacrament necessarily becomes void in the case of the wicked, both

must become void; if it remain valid with the wicked, this must be so with both. And

hence it is clear that they are guilty of impiety who endeavor to rebaptize those who are

in Catholic unity; and we act rightly who do not dare to repudiate Gods sacraments,

even when administered in schism.44

When all comes to all it is this which makes the argument unassailable. The sacrament is not that of

the baptizer, Catholic or heretic, it is Gods sacrament. It is Gods gift to give and no ones to take

away or repudiate.

It does not matter if heretics such as Marcion, Valentinus, Arius, or Eunomius, whose understanding

is not complete perform the baptism. As long as the sacrament of baptism with the words

of the gospel, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the sacrament

was complete.45 Augustine rejects the suggestion that the sacrament is contingent on ones ideas of

the sacrament. He argues that

if they [the aforementioned heretics] could be individually asked for an accurate

exposition of their opinions, would probably show a diversity of opinions as numerous

as the persons who held them, "for the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit

of God." Can it, however, be said on this account that they do not receive the complete

sacrament? or that, if they shall advance, and correct the vanity of their carnal opinions,

they must seek again what they had received? Each man receives after the fashion of his

own faith; yet how much does he obtain under the guidance of that mercy of God, in the

confident assurance of which the same apostle says, "If in anything ye be otherwise

minded, God shall reveal even this unto you"?46

For this reason, no doubt, to this day the baptism is not restricted to the ordained, but can be carried

out even by the non-baptized with the baptismal formula prescribed in the Gospel of Matthew.47

One cannot help but wonder why there should be such a remarkable difference between the

sacrament of baptism and the Eucharist. Is the Eucharist for some reason more subject to the one

performing the ritual than a baptism? Where the baptism is complete by the performance the ritual

alone, regardless of the incomplete understanding of the one performing it, the Eucharist is

unaccountably incomplete, if the one performing it is regarded as having an incomplete

understanding, and if the one performing it is perceived to be standing outside the bounds of the

43 See bibliography in Hubertus R. Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction, pp. 403-4.

44 Augustine ,Augustin: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists trans. Philip Schaff, p. 412.45 Ibid., p. 442.46 Ibid. insertion mine.

47 Catechism of the Catholic Church #1256


12/14

Church.

If the Church could perceive the Eucharist as a gift of God, unconditional and irrespective of the

one performing it, if the lesson that Augustine imparted in the case of the Donatist was learned, then

the Church would be closer to Church unity than any statement of doctrine about the nature of the

Eucharist.

Recent Bahai contribution to interfaith dialogue

In April of 2002 the governing council of the Bahai community of the Bahai Faith, the Universal

House of Justice sent out its second encyclical letter addressed to non-Bahais of the world, the first

being the Promise of World Peace.48 This second letter addressed concerns about the challenge that

face the collective leadership of the worlds religions with respect to ensuring the oneness of

humanity.

Tragically, organized religion, whose very reason for being entails service to the cause

of brotherhood and peace, behaves all too frequently as one of the most formidableobstacles in the path; to cite a particular painful fact, it has long lent its credibility to

fanaticism.49

Looking to hopeful initiatives such as the Parliament of Religions and more recently the rise of

interfaith movements and increased interest amongst educators, yet despite these encouraging trends

the suggestion that all of the world's great religions are equally valid in nature and origin is

stubbornly resisted by entrenched patterns of sectarian thought.50 Thus, while other aspects of

humanitys collective life is advancing towards healing the wounds of a segregated world the

greater part of organized religion stands paralyzed at the threshold of the future, gripped in those

very dogmas and claims of privileged access to truth that have been responsible for creating some

of the most bitter conflicts dividing the earth's inhabitants.51

Religious leaders must therefore neither neglect the dire consequences of this state of

affairs or how it has robbed organized religion of credibility, nor forget these same

religions have awakened in whole populations capacities to love, to forgive, to create,

to dare greatly, to overcome prejudice, to sacrifice for the common good and to

discipline the impulses of animal instinct.52

Bahaullahs call for for the oneness of religion and claim of the oneness of those Divine

originators of religion should not be set against the fundamental verities religion.

What others believe -- or do not believe -- cannot be the authority in any individualconscience worthy of the name. What the above words do unequivocally urge is

renunciation of all those claims to exclusivity or finality that, in winding their roots

around the life of the spirit, have been the greatest single factor in suffocating impulses

to unity and in promoting hatred and violence.53

Great importance is also placed on the station of science, which far from being in conflict with

faith and revelation is a to be regarded as one of the fundamental modes of the mind's exploration

48 The Universal House of Justice, The Promise of World Peace, 1985 Oct,49 The Universal House of Justice, To the World's Religious Leaders, 2002 April, This letter was later (2006

September) supplemented by one of the Bahai communitys agencies in a statement called One Common Faith.

50 Ibid.51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.


13/14

of reality.54 As the application of scientific advances must look to the guidance of spiritual and

moral commitment to ensure their appropriate application; religious convictions, no matter how

cherished they may be, must submit, willingly and gratefully, to impartial testing by scientific

methods.55

In conclusion it calls for a recognition of the tenet of the interfaith movement that God is one and

that, beyond all diversity of cultural expression and human interpretation, religion is likewiseone.56The dangers of ignoring this can scarcely be underestimated.

With every day that passes, danger grows that the rising fires of religious prejudice will

ignite a worldwide conflagration the consequences of which are unthinkable. Such a

danger civil government, unaided, cannot overcome. Nor should we delude ourselves

that appeals for mutual tolerance can alone hope to extinguish animosities that claim to

possess Divine sanction. The crisis calls on religious leadership for a break with the past

as decisive as those that opened the way for society to address equally corrosive

prejudices of race, gender and nation. Whatever justification exists for exercising

influence in matters of conscience lies in serving the well-being of humankind. At this

greatest turning point in the history of civilization, the demands of such service couldnot be more clear. "The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable",

Bah'u'llh urges, "unless and until its unity is firmly established."57

Conclusion

It is perhaps not surprising that Nijenhuis should perceive the Bahai position on matters of

theology (particularly on matters of revelation) as less sophisticated then that of the Catholics

theologians. Such is the lot of every new religion. When Christianity first emerged it contained

much of the same oddities, so pagan intellectuals thought, as Judaism did. Yet the latter at least hadan acknowledged antiquity. As Dale Martin points out Greek intellectuals of the second century

(and other times as well) honored antiquity and classicism. Whatever was novel was suspect.

Greeks did not always respect Jews, but they grudgingly admitted that Judaism was an ancient

ethnic religion and thus merited some respect.58

Without centuries of tradition, of intellectual reformulation, Christianity was just another novelty, a

new superstition. One cannot help but hear the label fundamentalism, which Nijenhuis applies

to the Bahai Faith, as a modern version of the ancient superstition label. Pagan intellectuals,

however, overlooked that Christianity provided new social and religious paradigms which in the

end were better equipped to deal with the requirements of the age.59

While Nijenhuis certainly is not grudging in his acknowledgment of what he finds worthy of respect

in the Bahai Faith, he does seem to overlook that central paradigm which is germane to the

ecumenical enterprise: Religious unity.

Indeed when we look to one of the major Christian schisms, the Catholic-Protestant, we see that the

problem here were not theological, but ecclesiastical. Martin Luther published hisNinety-Five

Theses and Tractus de indulgentiis and in January 1518 it had come through several hands until it

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.58 Martin, Dale B.Inventing Superstition: From the Hippocratics to the Christians, p. 147.59 See for example Rodney Starks The rise of Christianity: a sociologist reconsiders history. Stark identifies several

socio-religious views which paved the way for Christianity becoming the dominant religion of the Roman empire.


14/14

reached Rome. In February 3 of that year the conclusion had been reached that Luther was

disseminating something new, a new dogma.60 Such a conclusion was surely at variance with what

Luther himself thought he was doing. Rather Luther saw himself in line with other Augustinians

regarded this practice with displeasure. Half a century earlier the motto Repentance is better than

indulgences had given precedence to Luthers sentiments.61It was not a matter of doctrine, but a

concern that such practice as the purchase of indulgence was a sign that the Devil had the Church in

its clutches. Not unlike the Donatist this had nothing to do with matters of doctrine, but was amatter of ecclesiastical misconduct. For the Donatist it was the surrender to persecution of a pagan

state, for Luther it was the surrender to greed and each saw themselves to be in the Last Days.

If Paul D. Murrey is correct in his assessment that theJoint Declaration on the Doctrine ofJustification of 1999 is truly regarded as the greatest success of the ecumenical efforts,62 then thereis a paradigmatic problem. It betokens a mindset in which the ecumenical project comes to fruition

through a set of agreed statements of doctrine. Such an approach presupposes that the segregation is

a theological problem rather than an ecclesiastical problem.

It pursues the illusion of the attainability of uniform understanding of doctrine and misjudges the

implication for true unity. It presumes that the formulaic recitation of doctrine is the crowningachievement of a religious community.

If the warning of the Universal House of Justice about ever rising danger that religious prejudice

will ignite a worldwide conflagration, then the task must surely be of a different nature. It is not

sufficient to formulate doctrine. Rather there must be call for unity of purpose. The purpose which

lies at the heart of religiosity. Not mere toleration, but an elimination of prejudices of race gender

and nationality. Can ecumenical efforts settle for ambitions that fall short of this? Can it settle for

statements of doctrine, which will inevitably be understood differently by different people, when the

needs are so pressing?

Christianity today counts the greatest numbers of followers in the world, and likely the greatest

resources. Its duty to humanity, in a time where religious prejudice are becoming evermore of

greater concern, must be addressed. Yet before it can aid humanity towards reconciliation it must

find it within itself. Christian unity is critical. The divided body of Christ must be healed.

Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself Luke 4:23

60 Wicks, Jared Roman Reactions to Luther: The First Year (1518) in The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 69, No. 4

(Oct., 1983), p. 523.61 Oberman, Heiko A.Luther: Man between God and the Devil, pp. 74-5.62 Murray, Paul D. Catholicism and Ecumenism in Anne Hession & Patricia KieranExploring Theology: Making

sense of Catholic Tradition, p. 304.

AnswerNijenhuis

Documents

Transcript of AnswerNijenhuis