-If you want to learn about a religion, you should use their sources, and talk to their adherents. After all, you wouldn’t ask a Nazi to explain Judaism to you (a question of bias). You also wouldn’t question a Bible-thumping southerner about Islam, for the same reason you wouldn’t ask an art historian about mechanical engineering (a question of expertise). Go to the source and its native interpretations. (Of course, the average John Doe, Eliezer Cohen, or Mohammed Abdullah may not be the most knowledgeable, literate spokesperson for his religious tradition.
-Compare best to best. We (Stendahl says, speaking in general) are often too guilty of comparing our bests to their worsts.
-Allow room for “holy envy.” For me, I have holy envy of the Catholic doctrine of the real presence. I could see myself in a spiritual ecstasy after partaking of the literal presence.
Charity, TOm
Excellent advice TOm, thanks for sharing. Too many times we go about a discussion trying to convert people. But conversion does not mean understanding. Conversation in love is different than in law or demand.
I would like to speak on this at length later when I have time, but I used to work for two Baha’is for over two years and know a great deal about their faith. I would like to say this in summary until later.
The Baha’is confuse, like most Christians, the meaning of the kingdom of God. They think, like many Christians, of a single individual (Christ’s second coming perhaps, Baha’u’llah), as establishing an authority and outward rule. But Paul teaches that the consummation of the kingdom means the indwelling Spirit in the hearts of men (Romans 8:9-11). Jesus implies this in his exchange with Nicodemus in John.
However, Christians more often make the mistaken, which my Baha’i friends seemed to wisely avoid, that the kingdom only applies to the afterlife. The kingdom, indeed, is meant “on earth as it is in heaven.” This means love and justice in all our ways, where God and Christ are all in all. So even from the perspective of Christian faith, progess in the kingdom is worked by the Spirit’s regenerative presence at all times. Many Christians have fallen into authoritarian systems and fail to see the call of God to justice in our concrete lives. Baha’i faith represents a call back to this.
There is a further issue with Baha’i faith. Baha’u’llah shows too many Romanticist influences from early modernism that, even if he were a genuine prophet, which I think is plausible, he could hardly be the Christ returned. Baha’u’llah is prone to speak in his own writings of Christ as dwelling in him, like Paul also spoke. Baha’i faith is extremely individualistic and emotionalistic, which corresponds to that revolt against mechanizing tendencies within modern industrial capitalism. It can be read against the same backdrop as that of existentialism.
Lastly, the Baha’is are definitely right that God will usher in universal participation and cooperation of the nations and their traditions in the day of the Lord’s kingdom (Isaiah 2).
It should be recognized that number crunching for prophecy proofs and demands as to the final criterion of interpretation are tautological exchanges which lead nowhere but to bickering. Let us exchange the meat and heart of the matter, and not proof texts.
More later.
Peace and joy of Christ’s eternal kingdom,
Gabriel