The Bahá’i religion is based
on the monotheistic teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, the nineteenth-century prophet whom
Bahá’i’s maintain is the prophet even for the twenty-first century. The
monotheism dovetails with the religion’s earthly goal of unity even in diversity.[1]
At the same time, the religion is universalistic in that it holds that truth
can come out of various religions, including non-deism Buddhism and
polytheistic Hinduism. Bahá’i aims to be a tolerant religion in principle,
although it seems to me that the monotheistic religions would naturally be
favored. Although Hindu and Buddhist teachings and prayers are incorporated, Bahá’i
does seem to emphasize Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Yet this does not
absolve Bahá’iism from the tension in being both monotheist and inclusive of
truth from non-monotheist religions.
Even within Bahá’i’s grasp of the three
monotheist religions an underlying tension can be found. Specifically, although
Bahá’iism aims to accurately
represent all three of the Abrahamic religions, the desire to emphasize what those religions have in common comes at
the expense of taking each in its own, distinct terms. In particular, Bahá’i
teaching treats Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed similarly even though they are different
types in their respective religions. The imposed isomorphism enables Bahá’iism
to claim Bahá’u’lláh as the fourth is a series of the same prophet-type. This
type stresses the divine-connection of the prophet at the expense of his human
nature. Meanwhile, the goal of unity—the Kingdom of God—is also portrayed in distinctly
earthly terms, albeit idealized, as the unity possible around the world of
different peoples in “a civilization founded on justice, equality and unity in
diversity.”[2]
Viewing the Kingdom of God in such concrete, even partisan terms can
arbitrarily narrow and even skew the divine into terms that are human, even all
too human.
According to Bahá’i teaching, a
series of prophets has provided mankind with God’s teachings on how to take the
next step as religion has progressed through human history.[3]
Although the progression has been toward monotheism, a non-deity religious sect
such as Theravada Buddhism and a polytheistic religion such as Hinduism are
still drawn on in Bahá’i prayer, given the religion’s belief that truth can
come from many religions.
Looking back, we see a line of
prophets ending with Bahá’u’lláh. “In every era of history, God has opened the
gates of grace to the world by providing us with one of His Manifestations
charged with providing the moral and spiritual stimulus that human beings need
to cooperate and advance.”[4]
Although Bahá’u’lláh is “the One Whose teachings will bring the maturation of
humanity, ushering in the long-promised time when all the peoples of the world
will live side by side in peace and unity,”[5]
all of the previous prophets, or Manifestations, are of the same type; or, more
to the point, the claim is that Bahá’u’lláh is on par with Krishna, Siddhartha,
Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, but is Moses on par with Jesus?—the former being a
man asked by Yahweh to lead God’s people out of Egypt and the latter being the Son of God, fully human and fully
divine. Is Siddhartha, the Buddha (enlightened one), on par with Krishna, a
Hindu God? The Buddha insists he is not a deity, or even a prophet; he teaches
his insight as a way to end suffering. What exactly is Bahá’u’lláh on par with?
The capitalization of Manifestation connotes
a unique relation to God. In Christianity, the Son of God is qualitatively
different that the sons or children of God. What, then, of Siddhatha, Moses,
and Mohammed who do not claim to be more than human beings? Is Bahá’u’lláh like
them, or is he like the divine Krishna and Jesus Christ? The reference to Manifestations may suggest that every
figure in the line is sinless—more divine than merely human.
The 2019 Grassroots Teaching
Conference of the Four Corners Region in the U.S. states that the prophets were
“social visionaries, stainless mirrors of virtue” who “set out teachings and
truth that answered the urgent needs of the age,”[6]
which could last hundreds of years until the next prophet comes along even if
the teachings have to cover very different contexts from that in which they
sprouted. This raises the question of whether teachings from the nineteenth
century are readily translatable in even the first two decades of the twenty-first
century, which, like the preceding century, was so transformed by technology.
If not, then Bahá’u’lláh would not be the final, definitive prophet.
Even the contention of a line
of prophets is controversial. To label a Hindu deity as a prophet or even
manifestation of God is project the Abrahamic religions onto Hinduism rather
than be faithful to the distinctiveness of the latter. So too, the prophet
figure is foreign to Buddhism. Even within the Abrahamic line, the claim of a
future prophet after Jesus would not be accepted in Christianity, and likewise
after Muhammed in Islam. The Bahá’i claim that Bahá’u’lláh is the last of the
prophets thus conflicts with the claim that the religion is consistent with
Christianity and Islam.
The prophet figure is based in
Judaism, where the prophets speak truth to power used as a vice. How well does
the Bahá’i notion of prophet fit with the original? Moses is not even considered
a prophet in Judaism, though he is portrayed as a social visionary—but his role
in freeing the Hebrews is preeminent. Does not a religious vision transcend
society? Is it not rather presumptuous to claim that certain social structures
are sacred? Also, is Moses a stainless mirror of virtue? Yahweh bars Moses (not
a prophet anyway) from entering the promised land for having taken credit for
water coming out of a rock even though Yahweh has accomplished the miracle, yet
Moses is heroic in going back to Egypt to free the Hebrews enslaved there. In
regard to the Hebrew prophets, they are usually pointing out God’s displeasure
at another person for not being virtuous rather than being virtuous themselves.
When David displays a lack of virtue with regard to Bathsheba and her husband,
Nathan, a prophet, informs David that Yahweh is not pleased with David’s lack
of virtue. Does this imply or necessitate that the prophet is himself (or must
be) virtuous?
Moreover, are all of the
prophets recognized by the Bahá’i religion perfect reflections of virtue? Would
they not have to be divine in some special way (e.g., Krishna and Jesus)? The
extinct Greek deities show us, however, that to be divine is not necessarily to
be virtuous. Siddhartha, Moses and Mohammed do not even consider themselves
divine. Is Mohammed virtuous? If so, should we apply the standards of his own
time, when he was regarded as quite progressive, or ours?
Five of the Ten Commandments
are moral or normative, and God as omnipotent (all-powerful) cannot, by
definition, be limited to human moral principles. Can we know that the moral commandments are divine commands rather than
projections of a culture’s normativity? Bahá’iism holds that “God is unknowable
in His essence and that we cannot understand the nature of God.”[7]
If God is unknowable, then how can we be certain that a virtue is divine-sourced
and revealed as such? Faith is of belief, and thus falls short of the certainty
of knowledge. Moreover, if we cannot understand God, how can we be sure that we
understand God’s message in its pristine form? The messenger and subsequent
copy-editors, being human, may have their own perspectives and agendas.
God transcends the limit of
human cognition (and perception), and thus human concepts, according to
pseudo-Dionysus, a Christian theologian and saint of the sixth century. Even
the concept of the Trinity is to be
transcended. As the twentieth-century religious scholar, Joseph Campbell said,
the mask of eternity becomes the final obstruction to the religious experience.[8]
The message that reaches us mere mortals may, in Nietzschean coinage, be human,
all too human. In David Hume’s theory, the message could be said to be so
anthropomorphic (misapplying human characteristics to non-human objects) that
the quality of divine simplicity is obscured like a black hole in the middle of
a galaxy.
As with the kingdom of God in
Christian liberation theology, the societal ending point in Bahá’i can be
criticized for being human, all too human, albeit in a good way as far as
ideals go. Bahá’u’lláh’s revelation “contains laws, principles and truths which
make possible the unification of the human family and the construction of a
world which is both materially and spiritually prosperous.”[9]
The promise of material riches is rather earthly (as opposed to heavenly).
Although Yahweh promises the Hebrews that Israel will have material wealth if
the they faithfully keep the Covenant and the Christian Prosperity Gospel
maintains that God will reward people who have true belief (i.e., that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God) with material (and spiritual) wealth, treasure on
Earth has generally been contrasted with spiritual wealth by religions, including
Christianity.[10]
Encroachments of religion onto
other domains has been endemic since antiquity; bolstering particular political
and economic theories, structures, and related ethical principles by christening
them in a Kingdom of God can be thought of as self-idolatrous in that certain human artifacts are deemed
sacred. A religion espousing such a kingdom can actually exacerbate divisions
at the expense of unity because the selection of particular artifacts can have
a partisan, or partial, quality. In contrast, a Kingdom of God not of things
from our world—an other-worldly Kingdom—can more easily be associated with a
divine source.
The Bahá’i goal is a Kingdom
of God on Earth that includes a relatively equal distribution of wealth. Both
the degree of politico-economic specification and the “leftward” ideological
tilt render that Kingdom much like that in Liberation Theology, and thus
vulnerable to the same criticism. Although unity is highly valued in the Bahá’i
teachings, the religion fails to eschew political partisanship in rendering the
religion’s ideal society wherein people can be transformed such that religion
is fulfilled. Interestingly, members of the religion are discouraged from
discussing and participating in partisan politics because doing so is divisive
rather than unifying, whereas discussion of political and economic ideals is
actually encouraged under the rubric of a Kingdom of God.
Generally speaking, when a religion extends to
other (related?) domains, the unique or distinctive native fauna in the
religious garden can easily be overlooked. For example, transcendent
experience, which transcends the limits of our concepts, thinking, perceiving
and even emotions, can be clouded over by concerns that are properly of other
domains, grabbed by religion as if the distinctive element of religion—transcendent
experience—were not legitimate or worthy enough in itself.[11] Even within religion,
fights about whether a religious founder or prophet is divine or merely human
or over the nature of the divine entity, being, or object (which transcends our
cognition anyway) can keep us from stepping into religious experience—beyond even
the divine masks—even during worship services!
For more, see: God's Gold: Beneath the Shifting Sands of Christian Thought on Profit-Seeking and Wealth and Spiritual Leadership in Business: Transcending the Ethical. Both are available at Amazon.
For more, see: God's Gold: Beneath the Shifting Sands of Christian Thought on Profit-Seeking and Wealth and Spiritual Leadership in Business: Transcending the Ethical. Both are available at Amazon.
1. This
is similar to Schopenhauer’s ethical theory of compassion being based on Plotinus’s
(a second-century Christian philosopher) notion of the One.
2. From the 2019 Grassroots Teaching Conference of the Four Corners Region.
3. This notion of religion progressing through history is close to David Hume’s
theory in The Natural History of Religion.
Yet for Hume, the human brain can only go so far in holding onto the
pristine, uncorrupted idea of divine simplicity (i.e., pure monotheism) without
projecting more comfortable human attributes. Friedrich Nietzsche found a vice—that
of vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord—among the other anthropomorphic divine
attributes. He argues that vengeance is in conflict with omnibenevolence
(perfect goodness), thus the concept of God has been discredited even as news
of this has not reached the culprits and their enablers yet. Bahá’iism
maintains in contrast to Hume that the last prophet’s teachings can bring
mankind to construct the Kingdom of God on Earth, completing the
world-historical progression of religion. I contend that even Hume
underestimated the ways in which the human brain is incompatible with a
fruition of religion here on Earth. Denial, for instance, is a strong force
holding internal contradictions within a given religion in place—even hiding
them from the culprits themselves!
4. Universal House of Justice, October 2017.
5. Ibid.
6. From the 2019 Grassroots Teaching Conference of the Four Corners Region.
7. Ibid.
8. Campbell makes this statement in the PBS miniseries, The Power of Myth (episode Masks of Eternity).
9. Ibid.
10. On
the shift toward accepting wealth in Christianity, I have written the academic
treatise, Godliness and Greed,
published by Lexington, following which I wrote the non-fiction (i.e.,
dictionaries not needed) book, God’s Gold.
I argue that the Commercial Revolution and the Italian Renaissance as being
bench-marks for the transition from a dominant anti-wealth stance to a
pro-wealth stance—the latter making the Prosperity Gospel possible. In other
words, Christian social ethics were pro-wealth before the Calvinist work ethic came around in the Reformation.
11. On distinguishing the religious domain from stuff grounded in other domains, and on the primacy of transcendent experience, see my book, Spiritual Leadership in Business: Transcending the Ethical. Available at Amazon.
11. On distinguishing the religious domain from stuff grounded in other domains, and on the primacy of transcendent experience, see my book, Spiritual Leadership in Business: Transcending the Ethical. Available at Amazon.