The liberal-conservative dynamic within the Baha'i Faith

Part1

Hello all,

My purpose in quoting the following essays of my former coreligionist Moojan
Momen is to explore the dynamic he spells out between those Bahai's who have
conservative-fundamentalist cognitive styles and those who have
liberal-progressive cognitive styles.

My question is can these coreligionist who share one religion coexist in
spite of their different cognitive styles, their different psychological
types Senex through to Puer Aeternus or will these perennial dynamics cause
the seemingly inevitable breaking up of the Baha'i Faith into sects whose
cognitive styles and psychological types make them compatible as
coreligionists.

Currently it is obvious through the Universal House of Justices own words
that they see this natural dynamic between their own coreligionists as being
intractable , as being as situation where Baha'is are counseled to "keep
"constantly" a "watchful eye" on those "who are known to be enemies, or to
have been put out of the Faith", discreetly investigate their activities,
alert intelligently the friends to the opposition inevitably to come," .
This in the face of Abdu'l-Baha's council which states that "They must see
no enemy and count no one as an ill wisher. They must consider every one on
the earth as a friend; regard the stranger as an intimate, and the alien as
a companion. They must not be bound by any tie, nay, rather, they should be
free from every bond. In this day the one who is favored in the threshold of
grandeur is the one who offers the cup of faithfulness and bestows the pearl
of gift to the enemies, even to the fallen oppressor, lends a helping hand,
and considers every bitter foe as an affectionate friend."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 215)

The Universal House of Justice has gone even so far as to council the
reinstatement of religious practices that Baha'u'llah Himself removed . They
have counciled Baha'is to view themselves as divided "the Army of light "
ranged against " the forces of darkness " a backwards and superstitious
religious practice Baha'u'llah Himself removed when He forever removed the
division of humanity the "pure tree" from "the evil tree".

The Universal House of Justice in enacting such councils which clearly do
not reflect the spirit and meaning of Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances have
without a doubt proven they are unworthy of the leadership of the people of
Baha'.

There is a way back for them one which I have mentioned before. If the
members of the Universal House of Justice were to admit to the entire
community of Baha' their error in misguidely attempting to reinstate a
religious practice which Baha'u'llah Himself removed. If they were to
publicly appologize to Alison Marshall and Michael McKenny for the crude,
callous and un-Baha'i like mistreatment they received at their hands. As
well if they were to rescind their misguided attempt to erase people of
Baha' from the Crimson Book which was a delusionary impossibility on their
part and far beyond their authority.

If they were to retract their council to Baha'is to see one another as
enemies and as divided " the Army of light ", from " the forces of darkness"
perhaps then they would become worthy of leadership of the community of
Baha'.

As Moojan Momen has stated this Faith of ours has gone through cycles in
the past. I say our Faith because this Faith in Baha'u'llah, my being of the
people of Baha' remains a reality, in spite of my name having been erased
from a list, my name having been removed from a data bank. I remain a person
of Baha' because I am a " receptive soul who hath in this Day inhaled the
fragrance of His garment and hath, with a pure heart, set his face towards
the all-glorious Horizon is reckoned among the people of Baha in the Crimson
Book. "

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 219)

Until The Universal House of Justice retracts It's vain attempt to
reinstate religious practices which Baha'u'llah himself removed, until it no
longer makes the error of imagining "their friend an enemy". They will be
witness to the Baha'i Faith's transmutation from a potential world religion
into an insignificant, exclusivistic and insular cult.

There is one point in which I strongly disagree with Moojan's assesment of
the current cycle that the Baha'i Faith is experiencing. Because the only
replacements for membership on the Universal House of Justice are being
drawn from appointees to the ITC, appointess which have been made by the
Universal House of Justice Itself, quite contrary from what Moojan asserts:"
In more recent times, we may discern the beginnings of a swing back in
favour of the liberals " what we are in fact seeing in an intractible and
seemingly permanent swing in favour of fundamentalism. A swing in which it
is now considered a lack of firmness in the covenant to even broach such
subjects as incumbancy and the centering of power within a clique that has
at its tool the appointment to the ITC of only those who are seen to be
compliant to the status quo. Baha'is such as the most recent two replacments
of membership on the Universal House of Justice. Such a system may make a
pretense to democracy but its totalitarian roots are most obvious to all who
have the courage to see with their own eyes and minds.

I don't see myself as prophet or manifestation but simply as one of one
hundred billion human beings to have graced and disgraced this earth. What I
see for the future for the Baha'i Faith as it is currently being led is the
disintegration of the tent of the World Order of Baha'u'llah, the figurative
and possibly literal destruction of the Arc on Mount Carmel, that material
edifice that has been held out as a service to humanity when in fact in has
only been a self serving service to human Baha'i vainity.

There is only us we are them, 'as one soul'.

Yours Larry Rowe

"A religion like the Bahá'í Faith that has deliberately sought to have a
wide variety of people within its ranks will also contain, despite its
reputation as a "liberal" religion, individuals with a range of liberal and
fundamentalist opinions."
~ Moojan Momen ~


In this way His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh expressed the oneness of humankind
whereas in all religious teachings of the past, the human world has been
represented as divided into two parts, one known as the people of the Book
of God or the pure tree and the other the people of infidelity and error or
the evil tree. The former were considered as belonging to the faithful and
the others to the hosts of the irreligious and infidel; one part of humanity
the recipients of divine mercy and the other the object of the wrath of
their Creator. His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh removed this by proclaiming the
oneness of the world of humanity and this principle is specialized in His
teachings for He has submerged all mankind in the sea of divine generosity.
Some are asleep; they need to be awakened. Some are ailing; they need to be
healed. Some are immature as children; they need to be trained. But all are
recipients of the

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 246)

Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian, the Auxiliary
Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful eye" on those
"who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the Faith",
discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently the friends to
the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each crisis in God's Faith
has always proved to be a blessing in disguise, and prepare them for the
"dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against the
forces of darkness".
(The Universal House of Justice, The Institution of the Counselors, p. 16)
-----------------------------
Fundamentalism, Liberalism and the Baha'i Faith
What has all this to do with the Baha'i Faith? It must be clear from the
above that both fundamentalism and liberalism are wide-spread phenomena.
They are part of peoples' constitutional make-up. While a cognitive style
may not be as fixed a thing as the colour of one's eyes, if it changes, it
only does so very slowly.

Therefore if the Baha'i Faith is to be truly a universal religion, it must
be able to incorporate people of all types; not just all types of races, and
cultures but also all types of cognitive styles. The Baha'i community has to
be wide enough in its outreach and flexible enough in its workings to enable
it to contain both types of person without fragmenting into schisms and
conflict.

There are a number of features of the Baha'i Faith that favour it in its
approach to this problem:

First, the concept of the Covenant means that what ties Baha'is together is
not acceptance of a set of theological proposals - which the fundamentalists
and liberals will always disagree about - but rather loyalty and obedience
to a central figure or institution - which is a matter that will not divide
fundamentalists and liberals.

Second, because the Baha'i Faith is of relatively recent origin, it has been
able to take on board many of the features of the modern world which have
caused so much pain and discord in the other religions. Since there are
scriptural endorsements of such matters as the equality of men and women and
abolishment of extremes of wealth and poverty, these matters cause few
problems of principle - whatever problems they may cause are with regard to
their implementation. Even the most fundamentalist Baha'i is forced to take
up these positions which in any other religion would be seen as liberal -
indeed it is his very fundamentalism that forces him to take up this
position.

Third, the Baha'i Faith has no real dogma. There are a number of statements
regarding Baha'u'llah, His station and relation to previous prophets as well
as the concept of the Covenant which may be regarded as being dogmatic
positions but these are in fact matters of establishing authority rather
than establishing theological dogma. And whatever dogma one may consider
that exists today in the Baha'i Faith, it is unlikely to increase as there
are no mechanisms for establishing any new dogma. Baha'is are and remain
Baha'is not so much because they share the theological position of other
Baha'is but because of their common vision of the direction which humanity
is taking as well as their obedience to a central framework of authority.

And yet despite these protections, it cannot be denied that the presence of
fundamentalists and liberals does cause a certain amount of tension within
the Baha'i community. There have been numerous episodes and situations known
to the author of this article, and no doubt to any other person who has been
a Baha'i for any length of time, where this tension has caused problems and
even damage to the Baha'i Faith.

Historically, it could be said that the situation in the time of Abdu'l-Baha
in the West tended to favour the liberals. The cultic milieu out of which
many Baha'is came was a tradition in which a very liberal interpretation of
religion was inherent. However, there was also a fundamentalist tension
present, possibly as a result of those who came into the Baha'i community as
a result of Millenialist thought - i.e. because they considered that
Baha'u'llah had fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible.

During Shoghi Effendi's time the balance swung in favour of the
fundamentalists. Shoghi Effendi's concentration in the early years of his
ministry on building up the Baha'i administration would have tended to
favour the tidy administrative mind of the fundamentalist. The concentration
on missionary expansion in the later years of Shoghi Effendi's ministry
would also have favoured those with a fundamentalist stance - the
fundamentalist is one who wishes to convert others to his view since he
knows that it is the correct view and there can be no other truth.

In more recent times, we may discern the beginnings of a swing back in
favour of the liberals. The recent emphasis from the Universal House of
Justice on qualitative goals, social and economic development and dialogue
with other religions and organisations is likely to bring people of a more
liberal stance to the fore in the community.



Religions of the World: Divisive or Divine?
A Look at Religious Fundamentalism
by Moojan Momen



One aspect of religion that has come to general attention in recent years
has been the upsurge of fundamentalism. Although many people, on account of
events of the recent past tend to link fundamentalism in their minds with
the religion of Islam, it is in fact a phenomenon that can be found in
almost every religion: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
The split between fundamentalists and liberals appears to affect almost
every religious community to one extent or another. In this presentation, we
will first look at what fundamentalism means from the religious viewpoint.
We will then look at sociological and psychological explanations of it, and
lastly, we will examine why it is that it has come to the fore at the
present time.

Many people have a stereotyped view of fundamentalists: that they take the
words of their holy scripture literally and are opposed to science. This is
a view that dates back to the time when Christian fundamentalists were
trying to fight the implications of Darwinian evolutionary theory. However,
as with all stereotypes, it is not a sufficiently deep understanding of the
phenomenon and it has become less and less valid as the years have passed.
Fundamentalists have changed and adapted since then. They no longer oppose
science. Indeed they take great pride in the extent that they can advance
scientific proof for their positions. Nor are many of them strictly bound to
a literal interpretation of their scriptures.

Religious Characteristics of Fundamentalism and Liberalism
We will here try to present the main features of fundamentalism in contrast
to its opposite, liberalism. Of course. in order to show up the differences,
it is necessary to depict the extremes of the two positions. The attitude of
most people will fall somewhere between the two. We may characterise the
differences as follows:

1. The Scriptures.

The fundamentalist looks to the holy scriptures of the religion as absolute
and unchanging truth. The first concern of the fundamentalist is to
establish that the holy scripture is "the Word of God" and it is impossible,
therefore, that there be any error in it. All laws and commandments in these
texts are to be applied inflexibly and to the letter. Even in religions that
have no concept of a scripture revealed by God, Theravada Buddhism for
example, a similar attitude towards scripture can exist.

As a secondary principle, fundamentalists also favour a literal
interpretation of the scripture. However, the usual idea of the
fundamentalist's literal interpretation of the scripture requires some
degree of elaboration. In some places the text is clearly meant to be
symbolic-the parables of Christ, for example. Here even the most extreme
fundamentalist does not, of course, believe that these parables actually
occurred physically. In addition. there are also places where there are
inconsistencies in the text. The more sophisticated fundamentalist (the
fundamentalist scholar, for example) is willing to allow much latitude in
interpretation in such cases. The important point, however, is that the
fundamentalist always regards the scripture as referring to real existent
situations and facts. What the scripture says corresponds to empirical
reality. For example, even if heaven and hell are acknowledged not to be
physical places above and below the earth, these two words nevertheless do
refer to existent realities.

The principal concern of the fundamentalist is to extract an exact meaning
from the text of the scriptures. The millennialists of the mid-nineteenth
century were certain that their calculations pointed to the return of Christ
in 1843 or l844. Then the "Great Disappointment" occurred and there was no
literal fulfilment of their expectations. One group that became the
Seventh-Day Adventists resolved the problem by formulating an explanation
that the prophecy had been fulfilled. On that date, Christ had entered the
Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary, and he had a work to perform there
before coming to earth. This is a clearly non-literal explanation of a
prophecy that most other Christian denominations expect to occur literally
and on earth. The Seventh-Day Adventists do, nevertheless, have a
fundamentalist approach to scripture. Their interpretation of the "Great
Disappointment" has the ability to give an exact meaning to the scripture
when a literal meaning has been ruled out in their history. Another
instructive example relates to the question of Noah's flood. Some Christian
fundamentalist scholars are willing to accept that this may have been a
local flood in Mesopotamia rather than a world flood (which the literal text
would imply). This explanation is less problematic scientifically. But
nevertheless, the story of the flood does, for these scholars, refer to an
actual physical event - they rule out any non-physical (i.e. symbolic or
metaphorical) interpretation.

Much modern Christian fundamentalist literature is taken up with detailed
explanations of how the events of the Bible can be explained scientifically.
Scientific explanations are desirable as they are thought to provide a
guarantee of certainty and of exactness of interpretation.

Another characteristic fundamentalist attitude is that the whole of the
scripture stands or falls together. This view maintains that since the
scripture is the Word of God and therefore infallible, the inerrancy of
every single sentence of the scripture must be maintained. Otherwise, the
slightest error in any smallest part casts doubt on the whole.

By contrast, the liberal is willing to allow that the texts of the
scriptures are open to more than one interpretation; parts of the scripture
are more "true" - in the sense of being more likely to have actually
occurred physically - than other parts. As well as truth relating to
empirical reality, the liberal is prepared to see other types of truth -
typological, metaphorical or mythological - in the scripture. Allegorical
and symbolic interpretations may be used particularly of passages that
appear to contradict human reason. Social and contextual factors should be
taken into account in the interpretation of the scriptures. The truth lies
in the significance of the statement rather than its correspondence with any
external actuality. Traditional interpretations may be examined for whatever
useful insights they may present but have no binding force on the present.


.

Relevant Pages