Dear friends, Continuing on with my review of the book Reason and Revelation, this time I am treating two article's together, Sholeh Quinn's article "The End of History?" and Chistopher Buck's article regarding Native American Manifestations. I think it will be clear why I'm placing those together after you read the review.
warmest, Susan Dr. Sholeh Quinn's article "The End of History?" provides an accessible overview of academic methodology as it applies to the study of history, explaining both the contributions it can make to our understanding of the Baha'i Faith, and its limitations in terms of the kinds of questions it can hope to answer. She explains that history typically involves the study and interrogation of texts for the purpose of unraveling what they can tell us about the past. Historical analysis generally involves determining the who, when, where, reliability and purpose of a text as well as determining to whom it was written. In this way it determines the historical context of the text. Because of this emphasis Baha'i historians find it necessary to read texts in the original language whenever possible and avoid the use of compilations which decontextualize the text. At the same time there are certain questions of central importance to Baha'is which cannot be determined by historical analysis. These would include determining issues like whether Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation of God. For this reason Baha'i professional historians are sometimes accused of writing in academic contexts like non-Baha'is. It is not due to the fact that they do not believe but rather because the tools with which they work as professional historians do not give them access to that kind of information. The most they can hope to do would be to determine how Baha'u'llah regarded His own station. Quinn does us a great service by explaining in very simple terms what history can and cannot do. Dr. Quinn does not stop with an analysis of what the questions which historians can provide us about the past, she also suggests that Baha'i historians have much to contribute when it comes to correlating "the beliefs of the Faith with the current thoughts and problems in the world." However doing so is bound to lead them into controversy, for instance if they raise questions regarding the service of women on the Universal House of Justice, the relationship between science and religion, and the relationship between religion and state. What the paper fails to do is explain some of the dangers to the study of history itself that can present themselves when trying to make this correlation. Here I refer not to the danger of compromising essential Baha'i Teachings (though that is certainly there) but there is also a danger of compromising the historical method itself in attempting such correlations. For instance, if ones purpose in studying the historical background of women's exclusion from the Universal House of Justice is to make the Baha'i Faith more in keeping with current feminist ideals, then ones historical analysis may well be tainted by that objective. The same tensions can arise in studying the relationship between religion and state in the Baha'i Writings. Historical method, as Quinn ably points out earlier in her article involves studying texts within the context in which they were written. To instead focus on their correlation with current ideologies to raise as ahistorical a question as whether or not Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation of God. In short, the study of history must confine itself to describing the past, not prescribing the future. While Baha'i scholarship in general may well contribute to making correlations to the modern world, there are great limitations as to the extent to which we as historians can contribute to that process. Given the major thesis of Dr. Quinn's article that the professional historian is limited in the kinds of questions it can address, most especially the question of who is or who is not a Manifestation, the article which follows is somewhat ironic. In "Baha'i Universalism and Native Prophets" Dr. Christopher Buck presents the case for accepting Native American figures such as Deganawida into pantheon of Baha'i prophetology. Dr. Buck suggests a tension exists between popular Baha'i 'folk' beliefs which are inclined to accept Native American spirituality and official Baha' i doctrine which fails to explicitly name any specific Native American figures as Manifestations. He states somewhat misleadingly that there are 'explicit Baha'i strictures against adding actual names of Manifestations of God who are not attributed to in the Abrahamic tradition, most notably in the Qur'an" and argues that because "the Qur'an is seen as universal scripture" in thereby acts as "prophetological constraint" on Manifestations not mentioned there. Yet later in the essay Buck acknowledges that Zoroaster, Krishna, and Buddha are also officially recognized as Manifestations by Baha'is, none of which are explicitly mentioned in the Qur 'an. Clearly, the constraints in Baha'i prophetology reflect the limitations of the kinds of questions which presented themselves at the time of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha, not the Qur'an. While Shoghi Effendi acknowledges that there are Manifestations whose names are 'lost in the mist of time' Buck feels that this does not cover the oral traditions which in some cases do provide names for key Native American spiritual leaders. Yet, the Guardian insists that such names cannot be added to any official names of Prophets given the fact they are not mentioned in either the Bible, the Qur'an or Baha'i scriptures. While according to Buck one might think this would preclude Baha'i 'officials' from adding to this list as well in practice at least one House member and a Counsellor have done precisely that in speeches given on various occasions. Buck proceeds to examine the legend of Degananwida supposedly in order to examine 'why it presents itself to not a few Baha'is as evidence of an authentic native messenger of God." Yet rather than examine what this particular legend means to the Baha'is who utilize it, Dr. Buck instead seems more concerned to establish Degananwida's historicity and the significance of his life in general, suggesting that he is more concerned with arguing the case for accepting Degananwida as a Manifestation of God, than he is in explaining the utilization of this legend in popular Baha'i culture. This is made clear in the following sections where Buck argues that the traditional nine religions which Baha'is often present as the legitimate world religions are not sufficiently inclusive because of their exclusive focus on religions of the Middle East and South Asia. While the Guardian's authoritative statements may well put constraints on those who can be added to the canonical list of prophets Buck argues that since the Guardian was willing leave certain questions of history to the historians, this might allow for some refinement of doctrine. However, the specific instances where he cites the Guardian as doing this related solely to the question of dates. Like Dr. Sholeh Quinn, Shoghi Effendi appears to have seen history as concerned with questions related to the when, what, where and who of the past rather than determining doctrine or who is a Manifestation. In terms of Baha'i scholarship the most significant contribution of this article is bringing to the forefront a Tablet written by 'Abdu'l-Baha which explicitly addresses the issue of revelation in regards to the Native Americans. This Tablet, addressed to one Amir Khan of Teheran, acknowledges that at one time there was communication between Asia and America via the Bering Straits, the implication apparently being that they might have received revelation through this means. Should such people not subsequently be informed of later revelations they would be excused from recognizing them. But in ancient times they had undoubtedly received revelations which have now been forgotten. Buck concludes his essay by arguing that while it may not be possible to add specific names to the list of officially acknowledged prophets still Baha'i authorities might consider affirming the principle that Messengers of God have appeared in the Americas. It strikes me that Chris Buck is focusing on a non-existent problem. The Teachings already do express this principle. Unless one takes Shoghi Effendi's reference to other prophets 'being lost in the mist of time' or 'forgotten' as 'Abdu'l-Baha put it, in the most literal fashion there is no reason not to assume that some of spiritual figures of Native American oral tradition might not have been Manifestations as Baha'is understand them. This no doubt accounts for the fact that even those highest in the Baha'i Administration have not hesitated to name them in unofficial contexts. But it seems in asking for an 'affirmation' from 'Baha'i authorities' on a doctrinal matter, Chris Buck is expecting the Universal House of Justice to cross the line into the kind of authoritative intepretation reserved for the Guardian. Even were such a thing possible it is difficult to see what this would change. What Chris Buck sees as a tension between popular Baha'i culture and official doctrine is in fact merely a distinction between what we can attest as a possibility or even probability in principle and what we know by virtue of explicit revelation. And ultimately, as Dr. Quinn previously pointed out it is revelation, not history which determines who can or cannot be considered a Manifestation. But revelation itself can sometimes be constrained by the circumstances of history and the absence of any mention of the names of Manifestations who might have appeared in other parts of the world is an example of this. ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
