 |
Four Baha'i Analogies |
 |
|
Four Baha'i Analogies |
|
I would like to present four Baha'i analogies used to try to rectify the clash between regressive and progressive doctrines for man's basic spiritual behavior that run concurrently within Baha'i theology. Seeing the way in which these analogies all fail is critical to coming to a fuller realization that the clash is, in fact, an objective and true observation, and not just a problem of "misperception".
The first of these analogies pictures God as a "Great Physician" doling out different "remedies" in different eras and amongst different peoples as befits their varied "needs". (relative religious truth). Baha'i teachings put an emphasis on the necessity of taking the medication for the present ills of the world rather than reaching in the medicine cabinet for some different medication prescribed by the "Great Physician" (God) for an earlier and different illness.
Now that is a very curious statement that needs to be dwelt upon for a moment. We can observe that greed is a vice that has unchangingly plagued mankind throughout history. Likewise covetousness, jealousy, hatred and murder. Just what "new" vice is there that mankind only now has acquired that necessitates some "new remedy"? None can be found when the analogy comes to specifics. For the spiritual ills that plague us are the same ones Moses dealt with, that Jesus preached against, and that we live with today. Relativism on the subject of sin is false. Where Mankind's responsibility for the knowledge of those sinful tendencies is concerned, we are told in Romans 1:19 that,
"... what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities- His eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
This leaves no quarter for theories of progressive revelation or relativism concerning right and wrong. This contradicts any idea of God as a divine physician doling out different remedies as truth and sin change with time and circumstance. If there is a legitimate use for symbolism in religion it is to see the myriad of models God has woven into the very fabric of His creation that always reveal His timeless, eternal, and unchanging standards for good and evil, made known to us, "since the creation of the world."
The treatment for sin is not relative either. The Baha'i analogy cited is one that Baha'u'llah himself uses and can be found on page 80 of Shoghi Effendi's, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah. Putting God in the role of a "Divine Physician", it is gravely flawed. Such poetic license might work for Mankind, who constantly strives to improve his imperfect cures. But for the "Divine" Physician such relativism is distinctly out of character. There are no "special" and different remedies for Mankind's dilemma. The cure, like the dilemma, is unchanging. The sickness of Adam and Eve is the same as the sickness of every man who has lived since, save Jesus Christ himself. And the cure is the same. God promises us mercy through faith in Jesus Christ, God the Son, whose death and Resurrection on our behalf makes us pure in God's sight.
The Baha'i philosophy through this analogy attempts to create a non existant commonality across religions by making the varying doctrines of the different belief systems comparable to the varied therapies of the groping mortal doctor. It fails to recognize the unchanging sickness of all Mankind and the solitary omnipresent cure; Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:13, which I quoted earlier, points out this truth concisely.
"No temptation has seized you except what is common to Man."
There is no change in our sin-sickness or in our ability to recognize it for what it is. Relativism on the subject of sin is a false doctrine.
A second Baha'i analogy is the "Grade school" analogy. The "grade school" analogy is one very popular in Baha'i teaching. It presumes to model how progressive revelation is like the succesive "grades" we pass through as we travel the path of our formal education from Kindergarten to college. Baha'i teaching proposes that when Christ said that He had things to tell us that we, "could not yet bear", that this was to say that He realized that His "dispensation" consisted of a message for a more "primitive" humanity that would be upgraded when Baha'u'llah came (with the presumption that Baha'u'llah is the "Spirit of truth" that Christ promised who would give us those things He said we "could not bear" until that Comforter arrived). Thus, they assert, He knew we weren't ready for the teachings of Baha'u'llah, in the same way that the child who doesn't know multiplication is not ready for algebra. This Baha'i perspective reasons, "You cannot go onto third grade without having passed second grade first, right?" Thus, Jesus "dispensation" and Message are seen by Baha'is as a "primitive" one in comparison to Baha'u'llah's supposedly more "advanced" one. Of course one immediately wonders how this can possibly be made to fit with Baha'u'llah's rationale for pooling all the former manifestations into the Baha'i religious melting pot. Gleanings, pg. 59-60,
"Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their ... their messages... hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers."
Obviously it can't fit in rationally, and Baha'u'llah's assertion to bring the world, "what hath never before appeared", stands as a gross double standard within his theology.
Christians, in the first place, obviously cannot see Jesus "dispensation" as primitive. Jesus' mission of Salvation (call it a "dispensation" if you like) was not primitive or only relevant in some seasonal way that has gone out of date. Baha'i doctrine, relative to Baha'u'llah's "revelation", absolutely considers it so. Suffice it to say that if Baha'is did not believe it to be so they would hardly have a case for progressive revelation. Certainly where Christ is concerned the analogy is false. In terms of Jesus' Words about the coming of a "Comforter" who would lead us into "all truth", Baha'i religion has to ignore the clear intentions of the Pentecostal arrival of that comforter in the first two chapters of Acts in their attempt to attribute it to Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah is simply not the Scriptural fulfillment of the promise.
But let's investigate the broader analogy of the grade school. One clear observation can be seen from the objective reality of Jesus' prime (and Scripturally proclaimed) first priority as Messiah, not teacher. Baha'i theology might have made a stronger case for the graduating to a higher grade idea were the role and mission of Jesus what it says it was. According to Scripture it was not. The analogy is irrelevant when we accept Christ as Savior Messiah of all humanity whose sacrifice was "once for all". There are no grades. According to Scripture ALL have sinned and none "deserve" to be in God's presence, no matter how much they might "learn" from "teachers". This is clearly shown in Christ's own Words about John the Baptist. Jesus said that NO (mortal) MAN BORN OF WOMAN was holier than John. YET, even though this was true in the world, John was said by Jesus to be "less than the least in the Kingdom of heaven." You can't get "holy" enough to make it without faith in Jesus' Salvation, faith in the cross and Resurrection. Accepting the enlightening act of supreme "agape" love extended by God through Christ IS the embrace of Salvation. There is no "higher" more "advanced" revelation. If you have accepted Christ as your Savior in good Faith, you have "graduated" in terms of Salvation. Where achievement of that pinnacle of human spiritual goals is concerned, there is no continuum of progression toward higher "worthiness" by deeper enlightenment. Scripture teaches us that the spiritually "advanced" believer is as needy of external Salvation by the Cross and Resurrection of Christ as the baby believer. According to God's perfect standards, all are sacred, but none is holy.
Now obviously that doesn't mean that once saved a person can't grow and mature in understanding. BUT, this is FAR from accepting progressive revelation. For the Scriptural concept of Christ the Messiah tells us that all the possible maturing and growing one might do spiritually comes equally out of the revelation of Christ crucified, and NOWHERE ELSE. Whether you were a believer from one of the churches that originally received the New Testament Gospels and letters, or a modern day seeker, the Good News is the same for all. Romans 3:21 tells us that, "There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Scripture's portrayal of God's redemption of all of humanity in a single act, once for all, is not a concept compatible with seeing Jesus as some teacher of a primitive dispensation that has become passe' with the ages. It is, however, the unquestionable intention of the Gospel message to proclaim Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the singular and preeminent spiritual being in all creation and beyond all time, God the Son.
But the problem with the grade school analogy is the same as it would be for any analogy Baha'i theology might propose to model progressive revelation. It must fly in the face of Baha'i doctrine that contradictorily tells us that mankind always regresses spiritually. In Baha'is' use of a grade school analogy to demonstrate progressive revelation in which Jesus could be said to have given us "addition" while Baha'u'llah presumably gives us "advanced physics", they ignore the fact that Abdul Baha has specifically said that mankind regresses TOTALLY, not partially, in EVERY dispensation. He says that mankind ALWAYS flunks out totally as a general principle throughout human history. How can he ever go on to the next grade when he can never hold on to the first grade?? Let's look again at Abdul Baha's expletives on the matter of truth in every dispensation. Truth is, he says, "entirely destroyed and annihilated", "it becomes a body without a soul", "fallen into a state of the utmost degradation", "decayed, ruined". There is no room for spiritual progress here. There is no compatibility with the Baha'i analogy of moving on to a higher grade. Nothing the analogy can offer reconciles the fact that Baha'i doctrine contradictorily states that mankind ALWAYS sinks to the absolute lowest level spiritually, but also says that mankind has always gradually "progressed" until it was ready for Baha'u'llah's ultimate revelation. This is an objectively observable double standard on a fundamental point of doctrine.
In another way we have a different problem with the grade school analogy. Baha'i belief argues that 1) progressive revelation is a dynamic principle by which mankind gradually progresses, able to receive ever greater levels of spiritual truth. And, 2) That, although there may not be any more "manifestations" for at least 1,000 years, there will certainly be more (even endless numbers) who will only dish out what we are ready for.
Thus we should be able to assume that mankind will continue to "evolve" spiritually (principle of progressive revelation), and thus be needy of periodic manifestations to upgrade his spiritual enlightenment in keeping with his current growth potential. Progress should continue with ever "greater" and more "advanced" dispensations.
This, however, is definitely NOT what we see when we look at what Baha'u'llah says of his own "dispensation". Contrary to the idea that his dispensation will ever be supplanted, or even upgraded, he says,
Gleanings pg 12
"The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled."
Gleanings pg 244,
"In this most mighty Revelation (Baha'u'llah's) all the Dispensations of the past have attained their highest and final consummation. Whoso laith claim to a Revelation after Him, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor."
Gleanings pg 259,
"The measure of the favors of God hath been filled up, His Word hath been perfected..."
Elsewhere, we remember that Abdul Baha tells us that those who might follow Baha'u'llah will nevertheless, "fall under his shadow".
This obviously leaves any future "manifestations" spinning their wheels with a "highest" and "final" revelation to try to improve on. As Baha'u'llah tells us that in his revelation, "The measure of the favors of God hath been filled up", he leaves no room for any more "grades" for mankind to "progress" to, and grossly contradicts that whole running concept of progressive revelation that he has established as a governing principle with which to diminish the significance and authority of past "manifestations".
Also, we can easily see that mankind is certainly not spiritually advanced enough to be ready to receive this supposed "highest" revelation Baha'u'llah claims to have brought. Thus, the whole premise of manifestations never offering mankind more than we are "advanced" enough to grasp, is ruined. It is a terrible double standard to suggest that Jesus would only offer spiritual "addition" based on the idea that we were spiritual "first graders", while we see Baha'u'llah offering "ultimate", "final" and "highest" knowledge to a world that is obviously not advanced enough to grasp it's presumed "perfection"? Baha'u'llah himself stands as a concrete example of the fallacy of the "grade school" analogy in trying to promote a valid doctrine of progressive spiritual revelation.
Once again the glaring internal clash of regressive and progressive basic spiritual doctrines is revealed in an analogy that is supposed to model progression (advancing to higher "grades"), while what it really reveals are a multiple of internal contradictions within Baha'i theology.
Let us take a look at a third Baha'i analogy concerning progressive revelation and the simultaneously running principle of man as a regressive creature spiritually. In trying to justify the clash between Baha'i concepts of regression and progression it has been proposed by some Baha'i apologists that there can be progressive revelation even if mankind periodically trips and falls. This model attempts to downplay the "regressive" side of the clash. The analogy presented as a model goes like this; After a child takes its first step, it falls "all the way" down to the ground. The child gets up and walks again, and takes two, three and four steps. It then falls "all the way" down again. This process is repeated over and over again. Each time the child falls, it falls "all the way" down. But it gets up and walks further and further. Mankind, losing touch with the original principles of religion, eventually falls "all the way" down. But when we stand up to walk again, nourished by the "new wine," we walk further each time."
My initial observation is to point out that Abdul Baha does not simply say that, "mankind periodically trips and falls." He specifically says that, on principle, mankind ALWAYS falls, in every era and every dispensation. This is a constant that is needed because the whole point of his discourse is to try to corral all the religions of the world into some kind of unifying theory. It has to be a constant principle of human behavior for him to try to make his point since the diversity of world religions obviously spans all the world and all the eras of human history. To make his argument he must be presenting what he considers to be a universal aspect of human behavior. Thus, by direct association with his whole line of reasoning (ie. that the world's religions only "seem" to be different because mankind ALWAYS corrupts the true message of the prophet), he necessarily establishes a basic spiritually regressive dynamic for human nature. It contradicts the idea of man as a spiritually "progressive" creature. (Progressive revelation) That isn't that hard to recognize.
But let's look at this analogy of the child falling. Some obvious problems in the analogy have been hastily overlooked. In reality there is no parallel at all between a child falling down, and the concept of mankind "corrupting" the message of a "manifestation". It goes without saying that a child does not willfully fall. It's every effort, on the contrary, is to move 100% toward the purely positive goal of walking. It is not trying to "corrupt" the "truth" in its attempt to perfect self locomotion by willfully falling. On the other hand there are no end of quotes that could be brought to bear to show that both Abdul Baha and Baha'u'llah distinctly consider to be evil and willful the "degradation" of truth they preach across all the "dispensations". Mankind, they teach, rejects truth willfully and wickedly. There is no comparison of a child's innocent fall and mankind's willful rejection of truth. Thus, the clash in doctrine remains. For separate Baha'i doctrines preach man's WILLFUL rejection of truth (by basic spiritual nature), and his ever progressive acceptance of greater doses of truth (by basic spiritual nature).
It could also be said that although a child may physically fall "all the way down" each time it falls, it does not lose what it has learned from the lesson "to the utter depths of degradation", as Abdul Baha says spiritual truth does. When it falls, the child's internalized lesson is retained as a vantage point from which it improves. Abdul Baha says that mankind so utterly loses ALL spiritual truth between "dispensations" that, according to him, it becomes a "lifeless body". Forgive the humor, but unless the fall is fatal, the child progressively learns distinctly because its learning DOES NOT regress to the point of being a lifeless body. A child may well fall, "all the way down", physically as this Baha'i analogy asserts. But it never "falls all the way down" where it's learning is concerned as Abdul Baha says spiritual truth does by way of man's regressive spiritual nature.
Thus, rather than justifying the double standard within Baha'i theology, the correct application of the model used in this analogy, when carefully looked at, reveals more graphically the internally contradictory Baha'i doctrines of regression and progression. Both of these doctrines, which Baha'i theology says characterize mankind's basic nature, run concurrently throughout the Baha'i story of mankind's history. In the model presented of a child falling, as with the question of mankind as either being basically progressive or regressive spiritually, what we are speaking of here is learning and its retention (or lack of it) and how mankind might, or might not, learn and progress spiritually. The mutually exclusive concepts of progressive revelation and mankind's universal rejection and corruption of truth in every dispensation (Spiritual regression) stand in definitive contradiction to one another.
The fourth analogy is one I saved until last because it is the most difficult one to grasp in terms of an intellectual-logical appreciation of its fatally flawed reasoning. Though it is somewhat difficult to visualize, it graphically reveals the objective nature of the definitive internal contradiction that exists within Baha'i theology on this fundamental issue of man's spiritual- behavioral nature.
The Baha'i argument is that the "seeming" clash between regressive and progressive teachings within Baha'i theology should be looked at from the perspective of a 3 dimensional helix. This model asserts that the "seeming" clash is only one of misperception. When considering a helix, viewed from the end, the argument asserts that one sees a circle (which is the cycle described from the writings). Viewed from the side you might describe a saw tooth profile, (good old sinful mankind up and down and not growing spiritually). But put the end-view-circle and the side-view-zigzag in 3 dimensions. What you have really been describing, I am told, is a helix, a beautiful upward spiral, which is the reality of both the cycle of individual revelations and the collective spiritual growth of mankind.
Now notice that this line of argument agrees that, based on the writings, we would view our helix model of Abdul Baha's cycle as a circle when seen from the end. This is a crucial point to remember. We'll come back to that in a moment.
But let's talk about the profile described first. The Baha'i argument asserts that,"Viewed from the side you might describe a saw tooth, good old sinful mankind up and down and not growing spiritually." So the argument then concedes, again according to the writings, that mankind rises to the heights, but always plummets to the utter depths of spiritual degradation. Abdul Baha's model distinctly depicts the manifestation as the unsurpassable height of mankind's opportunity for revelation and growth. The manifestation's knowledge is said to be equal to God's own and it is allegedly only because of mankind's rejection of that truth, which he always corrupts, that we see "apparent" differences amongst the world religions. The manifestation is said to be the perfect "reflection" of God. There is no opportunity for a higher peak in the profile of the model. Likewise, Abdul Baha is quite specific in his description of the downside, the low points or valleys in the model's saw tooth profile. They are necessarily equal, all being represented as a total degeneration from truth to the utter depths of complete debasement. This is the reason why the dips in the saw tooth profile can never be any different and the peaks never any higher. According to Abdul Baha's model mankind is said to ALWAYS sink to the very bottom. Thus he never gains an increased vantage point from which to progress in future 'dispensations" and must always be seen to have to start over from the bottom according to Abdul Baha's description.Thus, the "saw tooth" profile described would necessarily have "points" all the same height, and "dips" all the same depth. The teeth would all look exactly the same.
Now let's look at that profile in 3D as suggested. The helix it would create would indeed "spiral" along a time continuum, but the spiral described as "spiraling upward" (insinuating spiritual "progress") is the aspect of the model that really only represents the passage of time. The helix model could just as well be drawn horizontally instead of vertically because it is not its length or height that represents spiritual progress. It is the relative width of the spiral as it moves through time that would show spiritual progress in this model. This gradual widening of the spiral could only be created if the saw teeth in the profile progressively heightened showing a progressive spiritual evolution to ever higher levels. The helix he describes according to the writings would look like a simple circle when viewed from the end because the "teeth" in the profile are all the same. One could look along an endless extension of this helix in terms of the passage of time and still only see the circle when viewed from the end because nothing different is happening from one spiral to the next in the helix. There is no progression. Spirituality in this helix model is static. This Baha'i model graphically demonstrates that the helix formed from Abdul Baha's cycle would indeed look like a circle when viewed from the end. That fact demonstrates my point. The helix model built from Abdul Baha's cycle shows no spiritual progression.
To have a helix model that would demonstrate spiritual progress over time, the teeth of the saw tooth profile would each have to be ever higher than the last. This would produce a helix whose spiral would be one of ever widening spiral arms that, when viewed from the end, would appear somewhat like a series of ever larger concentric rings, not a simple static circle. Abdul Baha's closed cycle does not support or allow for this "progressive" helix model.
Realizing that everyone doesn't practice mentally visualizing such things, and that this Baha'i rationale admittedly takes the discussion to a somewhat convoluted tangent, I add to the end of this, a graphic rendering of what I am describing so that any who are confused by my written explanation can see it graphically displayed.
If I were to animate these graphics I would begin by displaying the Saw tooth profile of each model, the even-toothed one created from Abdul Baha's closed cycle, and the very different one with ever higher teeth that would model spiritual progress over time. I would gradually shift the perspective of each model to a 3D perspective so that the helix implied by the profile's peaks and valleys would come into view. Finally I would stop at the point at which the view was from the end. In the case of Abdul Baha's cycle, the saw tooth profile would show an even row of equal peaks and valleys (mankind's spiritual ups and downs). As it changed perspective we would observe that those peaks and valleys would now be expressed as spirals of identical width in the helix spiraling along the time continuum. As we finally came around to the end view we would simply see a circle, looking as it were down an endless tunnel of equally wide overlapping spirals in the helix (no change over time, no spiritual progress).
Once again, Abdul Baha's doctrine of a spiritual cycle absolutely contradicts any possible theory of spiritual progress. When we really look closely at the helix model that would represent Abdul Baha's spiritual cycle, and compare it to a helix that would model spiritual progress, the contradiction is graphically confirmed.
