Proud of Our Beliefs

During a lecture at my second visit to the Baha'i Center, I got a strong sense that Baha'is are proud to be Baha'is.  There is a lot of good that comes with this.  They are proud to fight prejudice, to work towards justice and to be inclusive towards other religions.  Still, I found them oversimplifying other religious perspectives almost to the point of absurdity.  This may sound like a harsh criticism, but

1. I don't blame them for this.  Oversimplification is inevitable.
2. They were generous in their oversimplifications, which isn't always the case.

As a group, they seemed to agree that Christianity doesn't teach against racism or for a unified humanity.  To be fair, Baha'u'llah's writings are clearer on these issues than Paul's.  Nevertheless, there was a further assumption that God hadn't been working directly against racism through religion before God's revelation to Baha'ullah (in the mid 1800s).  I couldn't help but think of the Quakers I'd visited only hours before or the Sikhs I visited years ago.

One of many Baha'i Texts (It's worth reading)

My guess is that the Baha'is knows of both groups.  It's hard to be religiously aware and not know about the Sikhs, due to their being confused with Muslims.  And Quaker history (even their focus on the equality of all people) is American history canon.  Nevertheless, the information didn't seem to factor into the conversation.  Neither did Paul's declaration that Jews and Gentiles were one in Christ - a proclamation against both ethnic and cultural divisions (Ephesians 2:11-22)

The Baha'is can't be expected to know all of these facts any more than I can know all the things that might challenge or provide nuance to my beliefs.  Even what they do know may be difficult to incorporate into their current narrative.  Most of us are bad at using the information we know to challenge our most firmly held beliefs.  Consider all the creationists who have gone to zoos and see that at least anatomically that apes look very much like humans.  They have arms, thumbs, breasts, elbows, and knees.  They lack tails.  You even find them behaving like we do. They relax and daydream.  They nurture their children.

Creationists will see all of these things and still tell you that the people who think we are related to apes through evolution have no basis for the assumption.  My point isn't that creationists should concede by this evidence alone, rather it is that they should concede that a reasonable person could take these features as evidence.  I don't mean to single out creationists.  We are all somewhat blind to evidence that doesn't support our assumptions.  We find it hard to see evidence we're not looking for, and we usually only look for evidence that validates our beliefs.

Look at the fingers, the pensive look, the hairless face, the brow and front facing eyes.  Look at the very human-like ears.

Knowing our human limitations, we should strive both for humility and curiosity.  We should be aware that there is information we're inclined to miss due to current belief commitments, and we should intentionally ask if we know things that might challenge our beliefs.  This gets a little easier with time.  More than anything, we should go easy on one another.  We're all blind.  Looking down on one another for it only adds to our list of vices.

Faith Friday: The Quakers (The Society of Friends)

I met with the Quakers last Sunday.  Like all Christians, they focus on some scriptures more than on others.  I messaged QuakerSpeak, a group that shares information about the Friends, and asked which scriptures they think Quakers focus on most.  They sent me this video.

When I considered their history, I couldn't help but want to add the following verse to the list.  How often it comes up among them, I can't say, but it does reflect one of their defining characteristics.  "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

The following is a quote from George Fox's The Great Mystery.  Fox is considered the founder of Quakerism.

And the scriptures, which signify writings, outward writings, with paper and ink, are not, as you say, infallible, nor are they divine, but human, and men get a human knowledge from them; and so writings with paper and ink are not infallible, nor is the scripture the ground of faith, but Christ [is the ground], who was before the scripture was written; this the scripture tells you, and that God is divine; and the scriptures are the words of God, which Christ, the [W]ord, ends, who is the author of the faith. (SOURCE)

How "The Word of God" Shapes Doctrine

The question "What is the Word of God?" is the primary question that divides theological conservatives and theological liberals.  One's answer to this question will affect how he or she interprets the Bible.  If Jesus is the Word of God, perhaps the Bible needs to be taken seriously only insofar as it sheds like on Him.  If however, the Bible is the Word of God, then perhaps it should be taken literally.  The two faith claims aren't mutually exclusive, but theological liberals generally reject the idea that the Bible is the Word of God.  Similarly, where theological conservatives might refer to the Bible as the revelation, theological liberals usually use this word to refer to Jesus.

Understanding this is important not only for theological liberals and conservatives who don't understand each other.  It's also important for Humanists who might not understand the differences between Episcopalians and Southern Baptists.  Consider the issue of gay marriage.  An Episcopalian looking at the issue is likely to say, "knowing what we know today, what is a Jesus-like attitude towards gay marriage?"  A Southern Baptist, on the other hand will ask "What does the Bible say about homosexuality?"  Both questions are theologically coherent from their respective perspectives.