Friday, May 23, 2008

p03 Baha'i Fundamentalism

By John Taylor; 2008 May 23, 07 `Azamat, 165 BE

 

As promised, we will start into fundamentalism today. Yesterday I happened to be in the library just as they were finishing the processing of a new audio book, "Battle for God," Karen Ferguson's recent book about fundamentalism in her Big Three Conference of world faiths. Until I have audited this book, therefore, I will avoid talking about fundamentalism in other faiths and confine myself to the fundamentals of what I already know something about, the Baha'i Teachings.

 

In my Internet research I was startled to read in the Wikipedia the following definition of religious fundamentalism:

 

"a `deep and totalistic commitment' to a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of a holy book, absolute religious authority, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life."

 

Why is that startling? It actually was not until the second or third reading, when I suddenly realized that this definition more or less applies to what any committed Baha'i holds about the Baha'i faith and the covenant. It is true that there are important relativistic and liberal aspects of Baha'i "authority" that this leaves out, but strictly speaking this describes our core belief. So, are we fundamentalists?

 

Answering that question is difficult because, as I just found out, this is a relatively new word in the English language. It was applied to certain sects of Christianity, but did not enter the Oxford English Dictionary until the 1950's. And then it did not have any generally applicable meaning until, according to Wikipedia, the Iranian Revolution and the American hostage crisis required that commentators somehow explain to American audiences what was going on in the heads of the Iranian Mullahs.

 

"Fundamentalism" therefore could not have been mentioned by any of the Central Figures, and indeed the first use of it that I found by the House was in the 1980's. They wrote the NSA of the USA about a book with a negative article about Baha'i (a later edition of which is now ensconced in our Dunnville Library) called, "A Guide to Cults and New Religions", by John Boykin, advising them,

 

"Given the rise in most parts of the world of religious bigotry and fundamentalism, it may be timely for your National Assembly to try to arm the Baha'is against such attacks as appear in this book, which is so typical of the approach of Christian churches. Sooner or later, as you know, these churches will rise against the Cause. You are therefore requested to consider asking a qualified person or group of persons to prepare suitable materials, perhaps for a booklet, which the friends may use in dealing with misrepresentations of the Baha'i Teachings by Christians." (18 October 1984, in Compilation of Compilations vol. I, #296, p. 151)

 

The next reference did not come until almost a decade later when the House warned Baha'is against taking the writings too literally, lest there be a split based upon some being perceived as "Baha'i fundamentalists." Here is what they wrote,

 

"The House of Justice recognizes that, at the other extreme, there are Baha'is who, imbued by what they conceive to be loyalty to Baha'u'llah, cling to blind acceptance of what they understand to be a statement of the Sacred Text. This shortcoming demonstrates an equally serious failure to grasp the profundity of the Baha'i principle of the harmony of faith and reason. The danger of such an attitude is that it exalts personal understanding of some part of the Revelation over the whole, leads to illogical and internally inconsistent applications of the Sacred Text, and provides fuel to those who would mistakenly characterize loyalty to the Covenant as `fundamentalism'". (Universal House of Justice, 1992 Dec 10, Issues Related to Study Compilation)

 

Also in the Holy Year, the House addressed the Baha'i world, saying that the increased political freedom from the fall of communism had kicked up a dirty cloud, as it were, of nationalism and racism. These were compounded by,

 

"an upsurge in religious fundamentalism which is poisoning the wells of tolerance. Terrorism is rife. Widespread uncertainty about the condition of the economy indicates a deep disorder in the management of the material affairs of the planet, a condition which can only exacerbate the sense of frustration and futility affecting the political realm. The worsening state of the environment and of the health of huge populations is a source of alarm." (Ridvan 1992 message written by the Universal House of Justice to the Baha'is of the world)

 

In a later Ridvan message, the House also warned that fundamentalism is a symptom of a deeper spiritual disease,

 

"This spiritual hunger is characterized by a restlessness, by a swelling dissatisfaction with the moral state of society; it is also evident in the upsurge of fundamentalism among various religious sects, and in the multiplication of new movements posing as religions or aspiring to take the place of religion." (Universal House of Justice, Ridvan 155, 1998, p. 4)

 

Now the fact that "fundamentalism" does not turn up in the Writings of the Central Figures does not mean that "fundamental" does not. There is a rich vein of valuable material there, enough to fill several essays in the future. Clearly although there are strong fundaments (the Latin word refers to the foundation of a building, and any building has to have some grounding, even one built on sand) in the Baha'i system, all of the negative aspects of fundamentalism are excluded by the explicit law of Baha'u'llah.

 

"The people of Baha should soar high above the peoples of the world. In matters of religion every form of fanaticism, hatred, dissension and strife is strictly forbidden." (Tabernacle 2.35)

 

This is a recent translation that might well have used the new word "fundamentalism," but did not. However it does use the even broader word "fanaticism;" so there need be no worries in spite of certain similarities to fundamentalism in other religions that the negative aspects of fundamentalism are not protected against in Baha'i law. The Revelation tears apart but also puts together the best of what was there before. Let us then end with this prayer for today:

 

"I testify that no sooner had the First Word proceeded, through the potency of Thy will and purpose, out of His mouth, and the First Call gone forth from His lips than the whole creation was revolutionized, and all that are in the heavens and all that are on earth were stirred to the depths. Through that Word the realities of all created things were shaken, were divided, separated, scattered, combined and reunited, disclosing, in both the contingent world and the heavenly kingdom, entities of a new creation, and revealing, in the unseen realms, the signs and tokens of Thy unity and oneness." (Baha'u'llah, Prayers and Meditations, CLXXVIII, p. 295)

No comments: