  Ethics and Methodology
Comments by the Research Department at the Bahá'í World Centre
This seminar [The Bahá'í Studies Seminar held in Cambridge,
England on 30 September and 1 October, 1978] 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 distinctand even opposedareas 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
o£ 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 endeavour.
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 behaviour 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 honour, and to educate their fellow-men, 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'ís 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 good-will. If it be accepted, if it fulfil
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 good-will. 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 distil, 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 humour 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.
|