January 3. On this date in 1979, the Universal House of Justice
wrote
the "Participants in the Bahá’í Studies Seminar held in Cambridge"
regarding Bahá’í scholarship and the need for pre-publication review.
The Universal House of Justice
Department of the Secretariat
3 January 1979
To the Participants in the Bahá’í Studies Seminar held in Cambridge on 30 September and 1 October 1978
Dear Bahá’í Friends,
The
Universal House of Justice has read with great interest the report of
your seminar. It regards Bahá’í scholarship as of great potential
importance for the development and consolidation of the Bahá’í community
as it emerges from obscurity. It noted that there are a number of
problems with which you have been grappling, and while it feels that it
should, in general, leave the working out of solutions to Bahá’í
scholars themselves, the House of Justice has the impression that it
would be helpful to provide you, at this relatively early stage of the
development of Bahá’í scholarship, with a few thoughts on matters raised
during your seminar. Reports of your seminar were therefore referred to
the Research Department, and the Universal House of Justice commends to
your study the enclosed memorandum which that Department has prepared.
The
House of Justice also urges you not to feel constrained in any way in
consulting it about problems, whether theoretical or practical, that you
meet in your work. It has noted, for example, the difficulties
presented by the current temporary requirement for the review of
publications, and in this connection it asks us to inform you that it
has already established the policy that doctoral theses do not have to
be reviewed unless there is a proposal to publish them in larger
quantities than is required by the examining body.
You
are still in the early stages of a very challenging and promising
development in the life of the Bahá’í community, and the Universal House
of Justice is eager to foster and assist your work in whatever ways it
can. We are to assure you of its prayers in the Sacred Shrines on behalf
of you all and of the progress of Bahá’í scholarship.
With loving Bahá’í greetings,
Department of the Secretariat
The Bahá’í Studies Seminar on Ethics and Methodology
Held in Cambridge on 30 September and 1 October 1978
Comments by the Research Department at the World Center
This
seminar seems to have provided a very valuable forum for the discussion
of a number of aspects of Bahá’í scholarship, and the airing of certain
problems which have been worrying some of the friends in relationship
to their work and to their fellow believers. We believe that many of the
problems arise from an attempt by some Bahá’í scholars to make use of
methodologies devised by non-Bahá’ís without thinking through the
implications of such a course and without working out a methodology
which would be in consonance with the spirit of the Faith. The seminar
itself may well prove to be an initial step in such a working out. The
following remarks are intended merely to draw attention to certain
aspects which we believe can help to advance this process.
It
has become customary in the West to think of science and religion as
occupying two distinct—and even opposed—areas of human thought and
activity. This dichotomy can be characterized in the pairs of
antitheses: faith and reason; value and fact. It is a dichotomy which is
foreign to Bahá’í thought and should, we feel, be regarded with
suspicion by Bahá’í scholars in every field. The principle of the
harmony of science and religion means not only that religious teachings
should be studied with the light of reason and evidence as well as of
faith and inspiration, but also that everything in this creation, all
aspects of human life and knowledge, should be studied in the light of
revelation as well as in that of purely rational investigation. In other
words, a Bahá’í scholar, when studying a subject, should not lock out
of his mind any aspect of truth that is known to him.
It
has, for example, become commonplace to regard religion as the product
of human striving after truth, as the outcome of certain climates of
thought and conditions of society. This has been taken, by many
non-Bahá’í thinkers, to the extreme of denying altogether the reality or
even the possibility of a specific revelation of the Will of God to
mankind through a human Mouthpiece. A Bahá’í who has studied the
Teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, who has accepted His claim to be the
Manifestation of God for this Age, and who has seen His Teachings at
work in his daily life, knows as the result of rational investigation,
confirmed by actual experience, that true religion, far from being the
product solely of human striving after truth, is the fruit of the
creative Word of God which, with divine power, transforms human thought
and action.
A
Bahá’í, through this faith in, this “conscious knowledge” of, the
reality of divine Revelation, can distinguish, for instance, between
Christianity, which is the divine message given by Jesus of Nazareth,
and the development of Christendom, which is the history of what men did
with that message in subsequent centuries, a distinction which has
become blurred if not entirely obscured in current Christian theology. A
Bahá’í scholar conscious of this distinction will not make the mistake
of regarding the sayings and beliefs of certain Bahá’ís at any one time
as being the Bahá’í Faith. The Bahá’í Faith is the Revelation of
Bahá’u’lláh: His Own Words as interpreted by ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá and the
Guardian. It is a revelation of such staggering magnitude that no Bahá’í
at this early stage in Bahá’í history can rightly claim to have more
than a partial and imperfect understanding of it. Thus, Bahá’í
historians would see the overcoming of early misconceptions held by the
Bahá’í community, or by parts of the Bahá’í community, not as
“developments of the Bahá’í Faith”—as a non-Bahá’í historian might well
regard them—but as growth of that community’s understanding of the
Bahá’í Revelation.
It
has been suggested that the words of Bahá’u’lláh that a true seeker
should “so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may
linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that
hate repel him away from the truth,” support the viewpoint of
methodological agnosticism. But we believe that on deeper reflection it
will be recognized that love and hate are emotional attachments or
repulsions that can irrationally influence the seeker; they are not
aspects of the truth itself. Moreover, the whole passage concerns taking
“the step of search in the path leading to the knowledge of the Ancient
of Days” and is summarized by Bahá’u’lláh in the words: “Our purpose in
revealing these convincing and weighty utterances is to impress upon
the seeker that he should regard all else beside God as transient, and
count all things save Him, Who is the Object of all adoration, as utter
nothingness.” It is in this context that He says, near the beginning of
the passage, that the seeker must, “before all else, cleanse and purify
his heart … from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the
allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy.” It is similar, we think,
to Bahá’u’lláh’s injunction to look upon the Manifestation with His Own
eyes. In scientific investigation when searching after the facts of any
matter a Bahá’í must, of course, be entirely open-minded, but in his
interpretation of the facts and his evaluation of evidence we do not see
by what logic he can ignore the truth of the Bahá’í Revelation which he
has already accepted; to do so would, we feel, be both hypocritical and
unscholarly.
Undoubtedly
the fact that Bahá’í scholars of the history and teachings of the Faith
believe in the Faith that they are studying will be a grave flaw in the
eyes of many non-Bahá’í academics, whose own dogmatic materialism
passes without comment because it is fashionable; but this difficulty is
one that Bahá’í scholars share with their fellow believers in many
fields of human endeavor.
If
Bahá’í scholars will try to avoid this snare of allowing a divorce
between their faith and their reason, we are sure that they will also
avoid many of the occasions for tension arising between themselves and
their fellow believers.
The
sundering of science and religion is but one example of the tendency of
the human mind (which is necessarily limited in its capacity) to
concentrate on one virtue, one aspect of truth, one goal, to the
exclusion of others. This leads, in extreme cases, to fanaticism and the
utter distortion of truth, and in all cases to some degree of imbalance
and inaccuracy. A scholar who is imbued with an understanding of the
broad teachings of the Faith will always remember that being a scholar
does not exempt him from the primal duties and purposes for which all
human beings are created. All men, not scholars alone, are exhorted to
seek out and uphold the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.
But they are also exhorted to be wise in their utterance, to be tolerant
of the views of others, to be courteous in their behavior and speech,
not to sow the seeds of doubt in faithful hearts, to look at the good
rather than at the bad, to avoid conflict and contention, to be
reverent, to be faithful to the Covenant of God, to promote His Faith
and safeguard its honor, and to educate their fellowmen, giving milk to
babes and meat to those who are stronger.
Scholarship
has a high station in the Bahá’í teachings, and Bahá’í scholars have a
great responsibility. We believe that they would do well to concentrate
upon the ascertainment of truth—of a fuller understanding of the subject
of their scholarship, whatever its field—not upon exposing and
attacking the errors of others, whether they be of non-Bahá’í or of
their fellow believers. Inevitably the demonstration of truth exposes
the falsity of error, but the emphasis and motive are important. We
refer to these words of Bahá’u’lláh:
Consort
with all men, O people of Bahá, in a spirit of friendliness and
fellowship. If ye be 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 any one 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.…
(Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh CXXXII)
and again:
Should
any one among you be incapable of grasping a certain truth, or be
striving to comprehend it, show forth, when conversing with him, a
spirit of extreme kindliness and goodwill. Help him to see and recognize
the truth, without esteeming yourself to be, in the least, superior to
him, or to be possessed of greater endowments.
(Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh V)
In
our view there are two particular dangers to which Bahá’í scholars are
exposed, and which they share with those believers who rise to eminent
positions in the administration of the Cause. One danger is faced by
only a few: those whose work requires them to read the writings of
Covenant-breakers. They have to remember that they are by no means
immune to the spiritual poison that such works distill, and that they
must approach this aspect of their work with great caution, alert to the
danger that it presents. The second danger, which may well be as
insidious, is that of spiritual pride and arrogance. Bahá’í scholars,
especially those who are scholars in the teachings and history of the
Faith itself, would be well advised to remember that scholars have often
been most wrong when they have been most certain that they were right.
The virtues of moderation, humility and humor in regard to one’s own
work and ideas are a potent protection against this danger.
We
feel that by following such avenues of approach as those described in
this memorandum Bahá’í scholars will find that many of the “fears,
doubts and anxieties” which were aired at the seminar will be dispelled.
No comments:
Post a Comment