
PAGE CONTENTS: Page Contents: One Universal Principle Which Still Makes Sense By John C. Morgan UNIVERSALISM: MAKING THE SOUL SMILE by Patrick Murfin Magic, Deeds, and Universalism by Ken R. Vincent Reading Baha’u’llah in Indiana by Derek Lee Parker _______________________________________________________________ One Universal Principle Which Still Makes Sense By John C. Morgan “The attempt to find a common point of view is better than manipulative contempt for it.” --Simon Blackburn, Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge University, England One major ethical dilemma today is that many many believe everything is relative. According to this modern view, there are no universal truths; hence everything is determined by culture, history or individual quirks. When no truth is more important than any other, nothing finally matters because there is no way to judge anything as being more important than anything else. A cartoon expresses this idea: Charlie Brown is seen at a school play. Dressed in a witch doctor’s outfit, he says to the audience: “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere.” Typically the more cynical in our midst use ethical relativism as justification for their actions. They may cheat, steal or lie because in the scheme of things no actions are more ethically correct than any others because nothing really is right or wrong, good or bad. I find the modern view that we cannot judge behaviors by any universal standard to be intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt. If you don’t believe this, I would challenge you to compare those who murdered some fourteen million people in the Nazi campaign to eliminate Jews, dissidents, and others, to those who at great peril to themselves rescued countless thousands from ending up in concentration camps. If you have never visited a holocaust memorial, you should to remind yourself of what happens when people are treated as less than human beings. Or, read the story of slaves in our country to see that it can happen here. Closer to home, think what happens to our values when only profits rule without any concern for people. It does matter what you believe. The difference between people who believe there is no price to be put on a human life and those who believe some lives aren’t worth much is greater than the difference between our galaxy and one light years away. One of the greatest of all philosophers, Immanuel Kant, coined the term, “categorical imperative” to mean that there was a universal ethical law. Without waxing academic, one might describe this law in words your mother might have used before you did something to someone or to yourself that might trouble you later. Mother would ask: “What if everyone did that?” Ask Kant’s question the next time you think about cheating on someone or stealing or lying or worse, abusing another person: “What if everyone did that?” Once upon a time most of us knew the Golden Rule, even if we didn’t practice it as often as we might hope: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I believe the Golden Rule is universal, thought it has been stated differently in many ways. Here are a few: * What you don’t want done to yourself, don’t do to others.(Confucius, 6th Century, B.C.) * Do not do unto others all that which is not well for oneself. (Zorastrianism, 5th Century, B.C.) * Hurt not others with that which pains thyself. (Buddhist, 4th Century B.C.) * May I do unto others as I would that they should do unto me (Plato, 4th Century, B.C.) * Do naught to others which if done to thee would give thee pain.(Hindu, 3rd Century, B.C.) * What is hateful to yourself, don’t do to others. (Judaism, lst Century B.C.) * Whatsoever ye would that others should do to you, do ye also even to them. (Jesus, 1st Century, A.D.) * Treat others as thou wouldst be treated thyself. (Sikhism, 16th Century, A.D.) * What if everybody did that? (Kant’s ethical principle called the “categorical imperative,” 19th Century) * Don’t mess with others as you wouldn’t want to be messed with yourself (street philosopher, Philadelphia, 21st Century) (John C. Morgan is a Contributing Editor to the Herald and also teaches philosophy and ethics at a community college.) UNIVERSALISM: MAKING THE SOUL SMILE by Patrick Murfin At its core universalism is simply the stubborn refusal to believe that the universe is malevolent. It has been dressed up and silk and satin, coarse homespun, saffron robes, the quaint attire of countless clans and folk cultures, but that is the one absolute that unites them all whether they would recognize the label “universalist” or not. It dwells within us today not because of historic connections, although those connections are undeniable, not because of the bonds of denomination, though bonds are strong, but because we generally share that simple affirmation. In the earliest days of The Church, before there even was really any Church at all, when the very breath of Joshua Bin Josef, called Jesus the Nazarene still seemed to rustle the palm fronds and whisper through the olive groves, many of his fumble followers believed his word had changed everything. Yahweh, the fierce and jealous Sky God, who demanded sacrifice, punished those who would not shower Him with unremitting flattery, and tormented those tempted by the charms of neighboring gods was transformed. By Jesus, through Jesus, for Jesus, it made no real difference. Jesus, part and parcel with God himself, Jesus the Son, Jesus the Spirit, Jesus the Man Messenger, it made no difference. What did matter was that Jesus was somehow mixed up with this new God, a God of forgiveness, of love, of a righteousness that transformed lives rather than adhering with blind obedience to lifeless ritual, a God of Jews and Gentiles a like yearning for reconciliation with all of his people. The God that Jesus brought to these people wanted to gather them all to him, to elevate them somehow after earthly death to a place by his side in Paradise. The people were happy in this thought. Of course a Bishop here and a Bishop there might, in brotherly correspondence differ as to the details of the arrangements. Some Jews still clove to Jesus as their particular Messiah. Up in the Hellenic world some obsessed with ways to fit the message into the systems of the Greek Philosophers. For a long time, despite Roman persecutions most of these new Christians, as they had come to call themselves, were united in this cheerful universalism. For others the gods were the Old Wise Ones who chuckled at humanity’s foolishness while forgiving its folly. There were trickster gods ever ready to teach a gentle lesson. There were the enveloping arms and nurturing breasts of Mother Goddesses. Life for these folks was a blessing, not a curse which must be endured. Every tree and stone manifested the goodness of creation which was inseparable from the holy. These people, too, were universalists. In the East Lao Tse taught his followers about the light and the dark, the light in the dark, the yin and the yang. Some would read his teachings and believe that they were about enduring without complaint the evils and trials that the world rained down upon them. Placid acceptance was seen to be the key. Resistance or any measure to change one’s lot or station was considered a shameful arrogance and a disruption of a cosmic unity—another bleak hope for the oppressed and a comfort for the oppressors. Yet otherd would read the same teachings and always find the yin buried deeply in the yang, the hope in the depths of despair. These were universalists. The subtlety of the Hindu system, which so entranced Ralph Waldo Emerson, acknowledged the essential unity of one great, unifying divinity which we in the West might call God. But such a god was so great, so powerful, so vast, and so unfathomable that he/she/it could only be comprehended by humans in diverse and particular manifestations. In the Hindu tradition the three main faces of God, were Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. In addition each of these had a female mate/counterpart with similar properties and powers. And all had further incarnations, forms and avatars each with special powers and characteristics. Below this trinity were literally thousands of other names of God with a bewildering array of human and non-human faces each representing a subtle but unique attribute of the essentially infinite. In such a system devotees couldn pick and choose which face of God, which incarnation to worship. Thus one religious tradition birthed a thousand cults. Those who see the world as corrupt and evil could choose to worship Shiva and his feminine counterpart Kali, the wrathful angel of destruction bent on scourging humanity of its sins. Others could select from the Avatars of Lord Vishnu including Krisha the Divine Lover, Balaran or Buddha the Sage, or Kalki the completer and savior. These celebrated the light and the goodness of creation, the infinite perfectibility of humanity. And these were universalists. The followers of the Buddha would have little truck with Christian notions of salvation, bodily resurrection, and eternal life in the dazzling company of the Almighty. God or gods were unimportant to them, trifles if they existed, meaningless in their absence. Instead they believed that a well lived life-- reverent, kind and generous—which also cultivated inner peace, serenity and openness to a greater, non-personal holiness which united the universe, was the essential religion. But some Buddhists would come to view the world as its own kind of Hell and the endless rounds of re-incarnation of the soul in various states of degradation a just punishment until enlightenment can be achieved and escape from all travail made possible by the blissful nothingness of union with the greater. It was a bleak world and forlorn hope nearly impossible to achieve. Yet others, professing on the surface the same beliefs, managed to find bliss in each drawn breath, each moment lived with perfect awareness of the marvelous now, each connection with another soul, its own echo of the vastness of the universal One. They were universalists Back in the West, the Church ossified into a powerful monolith with vast temporal as well a celestial authority. But always, somewhere, some heedless soul would pop up and wonder at the fragility of the imposing edifice. On reading scripture for themselves, which be came possible after the invention of the printing press, they found that doctrines of original sin, damnation, and the identity of Jesus with the substance of God were no where to found in his teachings as recorded in the Gospels. The Protestant Reformation was off and running as men and women relied on their own reason to parse out the meaning of scripture. The Reformation shot off in different and contradictory directions. In many places, as among the German Anabaptists, some English Quakers, and other, the joyous insights of universalism were rediscovered On the other hand John Calvin in Geneva, John Knox in Edinburgh and others went in an entirely different direction. Central to the dispute between Luther and the Church which had started the Reformation was the concept of Salvation by Good Works—the idea that an exemplary life filled with charity and beneficence (especially to needy clergy or church coffers) could win salvation. All of the Reformers maintained that salvation was solely a gift of grace by God and could not be earned except by utter faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God and the only Savior. All others, the vast majority, were condemned to eternal damnation and nothing they could do, say, or profess would change the outcome. This was the religion of the Pilgrim Fathers, of the Puritans, and even the dissenters like the Methodists and Baptists. But on New England stone farms and in Pennsylvania taverns the notion grew that this Calvinism of predestination and election was so much poppycock. Thus was universalism born in this country. The Good News went out that God was both loving and forgiving, unwilling to cast any of his children into torments. Spread by the likes of George de Bennville, Elhanan Winchester, John Murray, Caleb Rich and Hosea Ballou universalism grew into Universalism, one of America’s leading denominations. Universalism’s pious adherents were mostly simple folk—farmers and artisans, laborers and petty merchants, the slat of the earth types from country side to rural village to industrializing town. They were happy in the sure joy that they were destined to sit with God. And not just themselves alone as a reward for placing the correct bet on the winning theology, they knew they would share Glory with all of humanity. They wanted to manifest their gratitude to God by living exemplary lives deserving of His gracious Gift. They also treasured reason and the ability of human beings to be agents for change in their own lives and communities. They saw it as their job to make a heaven on earth reflecting the Paradise to come. In such a world justice would “flow down like water in never ending streams.” So they fought against slavery and for the rights of women, condemned capital punishment and sought prison reform, demanded humane care of the insane, justice for Native Americans, and a fair shake for workers then under the oppressive heal of unapologetic capital. What became known as the Social Gospel flowed naturally out of their Universalist vision. American Universalism remained essentially a Christian sect with an abnormally sunny disposition. Then the wide world came knocking at its provincial doors and when those doors were thrown open something entirely new was made possible. In 1893 the World Parliament of Religion was held in Chicago in conjunction with the Columbian Exposition. For the first time Americans could hear directly from the great religions of Asia—Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Zorastorism—as well as from the practitioners of local native cults the world over and a variety of other Christians, Jews, and Muslims. It was a stunning development. Some Universalists recognized a certain kinship in the practical teachings of all religions and observed how each functioned in the context of its traditional culture. Perhaps, they began to surmise, Jesus Christ was no an essential agent after all, just one of many messengers of God’s greater truth. And if all humanity was indeed reconciled to God upon death, the forms of worship practiced on Earth were not critical. By the early Twentieth Century Clarence Skinner and others were re-inventing Universalism in a post Christian context. They wanted it to become a truly universal religion capable of embracing and understanding the breadth of religious express over the wide world. They emphasized the essential kinship of all humanity, expressing a universal love that defied the deadly divisions of nationalism, creed and class which were then turning the new century into the most blood soaked in history. They joined with emerging Humanists in placing the fate of the species in the hands of its members, who had the ultimate power to transform the world. As a church and religious body, Universalism ebbed and withered. By the time of its merger with the Unitarians in 1961 it was a feeble shell of its former self. But though the body was weak, the essential idea was strong. Many thought Universalism would be swamped by larger and better organized Unitarianism and its oh-so-rational and cerebral brand of religion. But almost unnoticed Universalism became the flame in the UU Chalice, the burning light of hope. Today when our movement welcomes and cherishes the voices of a thousand temples, we are Universalist. When the cries of the wounded and oppressed can not be ignored, we are Universalist. When we stand before the mob and declare the essential worth and dignity of every person, including gays and lesbians yearning to build families, we are Universalist. When in the face of despair, we refuse to cede hope, we are Universalist. When we search for language to express our longing for union with the Greater, we are Universalist. Universalism is Faith and Hope—the Hope that makes the soul smile. Partrick Murfin can be e-mailed at: pmurfin@sbcglobal.net Magic, Deeds, and Universalism by Ken R. Vincent When I was a freshman at Baylor University, I took a required religion class from Prof. Kyle Yates. Professor Yates was one of the scholars who worked on the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament (a.k.a. the Hebrew Bible). When we got to the Persian period of Hebrew history, he began to talk about Zoroaster, the prophet of the Magi. Inspired by his lectures, I went to the library and read the hymns of Zoroaster and thought to myself, “Wow! God talked to someone who wasn’t Jewish!” This started my life-long quest for the generic God in the world’s religions. For many years, I’ve been active in interfaith work, and my friends and colleagues here in Houston form a tapestry of the world’s religions. I have learned from them. Now that I’m retired, I’m a little old man who lives on the fourth floor of the Rice University Library, still steeped in the world’s religions. Today, I will be your guide to the Afterlife. You may have been hoping for Beatrice and Dante, but the worship committee wasn’t quite able to conjure them up. I’m going to give you a three-layer view of how people --- both ancient and modern --- have viewed Afterlife. This is what we in psychology call a “developmental” view of religion because it reflects the way both individuals and societies normally mature. The most rudimentary level of religious development is MAGIC, which includes bribery or other manipulation of the gods in order to guarantee a positive outcome for your Afterlife. In the middle layer, Afterlife is dependent on your DEEDS during your life on Earth, and the history of religious art illustrates the development of this idea across time and cultures. (Interestingly, MAGIC has often been practiced in conjunction with GOOD DEEDS.) The top layer of development is UNIVERSALISM, the concept that God is too good to condemn anyone to Eternal Hell, and that all humans will go to Heaven, either immediately or eventually. One important thing to know about the study of comparative religion is that it is a wide-open field with many scholars from various disciplines participating, such as Joseph Campbell (literature), Mircea Eliade (history), Paul Brunton (philosophy), Karl Jung (psychiatry), and Sir James Frazier (anthropology). Today, we’ll touch on the Afterlife from the perspectives of religion, history, psychology, sociology, and art. Most people in the world, regardless of their religion, believe that judgment for the Afterlife is determined by one’s deeds in this life. Simply stated, if your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds, you go to Heaven. But if your bad deeds outweigh your good deeds, you go to Hell. This is the story of humanity. My point is that human beings across time and culture share one story, although I must tell you that in the East, after an intermediate stage of Heaven or Hell, you have a “sequel” --- called “reincarnation”. In other words, in the East, your deeds affect not only your intermediate destination of Heaven or Hell, but also determine the condition of your next life. The oldest judgment scene we have in art is a depiction of the EGYPTIAN Book of the Dead which has been seen in tomb art as early as about 3,000 BCE. After the deceased goes into the darkness (which is the body of Nut), he or she comes forth into the light, into the Great Hall of Truth. Osiris is the King of the Afterlife, and Isis is his queen. For over 3,500 years, Osiris was known as the “Resurrection and the Life”. Your deeds in life were judged by weighing your heart against a feather, and woe to those whose heart is heavy with sin! Next we have judgment in ZOROASTRIANISM, the religion of the Magi. Here, three angels preside over judgment --- Mithra, Sarosha, and Rashnu. Rashnu holds the scales, Sarosha is the judge, and Mithra listens to appeals. Your good deeds are weighed against your bad deeds, and then you pass over a bridge. If your good deeds are heavier, the bridge is wide open to you, and you pass over easily. If your evil deeds outweigh your good ones, the bridge becomes narrow, and you fall into Hell. This razor-sharp bridge imagery lives on in Shi’ite Islam. In the HEBREW Bible, in the Book of Daniel (12:1-3), it is the Archangel Michael who presides over the resurrection. Judaism for the most part forbids artwork, but in Christianity, Michael takes his place right below Jesus in the judgment of the dead. It is Michael who holds the scales in which your deeds are weighed. This same scene is repeated in ISLAM, but here the Archangel holding the scales is Gabriel. Next we move from West to East. Most Westerners think that reincarnation is instantaneous, but this is not generally so. For the overwhelming majority of HINDUS and BUDDHISTS, there is an intermediate state between death and re- birth. This intermediate state is presided over by Yama or Yamaraj. In HINDU mythology, Yama was the first king and king of the dead. His assistants weigh your good deeds and, depending on the outcome, you go to Heaven or Hell for three generations. In BUDDHISM, as in its parent religion, Yama judges the dead. Yama is known as “Yama” in Tibet, Nepal, Southeast Asia and Western China. In Eastern China, Korea, and Japan, his name changes, but he is always the same fair judge of the dead. Where he is the king of Heaven in Hinduism, he presides over Hell in Buddhism. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead, a twelfth- century Buddhist work, the intermediate state lasts for 49 days before you are re-born. (Thai folk art courtesy of Todd Murphy) Now let’s step back to analyze the way MAGIC is used to influence Afterlife. Obviously, we are aware of cultures in both the Eastern and Western hemispheres that have used human or animal sacrifice to bribe the gods to do or not do something the petitioner asks. However, this practice has been abandoned by the world’s major religions and can be found in only indigenous religions today. On the other hand, belief in magical powers is still very much a part of our modern culture when it comes to “stacking the deck” in favor of a Heavenly Afterlife. In most religion, there is a tension between the moral justice of judgment according to deeds and magic to insure a positive verdict. The keys to effective magic are that, 1) you have to be “in the club”, and 2) you or your priest must know the “secret words”. In ancient Egypt, the scales of judgment are older than the pyramids, but they co-exist with the magic text of the Egyptian Book of the Dead that enables the deceased to overcome past sins. Countering this are not only the scales, but the instruction for Merikare (2200 BCE) which reinforces the idea of judgment according to deeds. Additionally, there is the story of Si-Osiris (son of Osiris) and his father, Setne Khaemwise (fourth son of Ramesses II). Si-Osiris is a seer. He and his father watch a funeral procession in which a rich man was being carried with his elaborate belongings to a princely tomb. Shortly after this, they observed the funeral of a poor man wrapped only in a cloth who was being taken for burial in the desert sand. The Egyptian prince remarks to his son that he hopes for a good funeral in preparation for a glorious Afterlife, but his seer son remarks that all things are not as they appear to be. He puts his father into a trance, and the two are transported to the land of the dead where the evil rich man is suffering a hellish fate and the righteous poor man is being comforted by Osiris, Isis, and the Egyptian gods, and is living afterlife in regal splendor. This shows the development of morality and justice in the Egyptian religion, and some Christian scholars think this is the origin of the story of the rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 16:19-31). The main point here is to underscore the great antiquity of the belief that salvation is by works. In ancient Greece, the Afterlife in very early times was seen as a very gloomy place where everyone went. But by the time of Plato, the idea of judgment according to deeds had developed. In Plato’s Republic, the story is told about Er, the world’s oldest recorded near-death experiencer, who revives on his funeral pyre and tells of a judgment at death by three judges. The good ascend to Paradise, and the evil descend to Hell. But after a period of time, Plato also mentions the possibility of reincarnation. Pythagoras also was an advocate of reincarnation. In the mysteries that were popular in the later Greek and Roman periods, we are given a chance for an “up-grade” in the Afterlife via the magical rites of the mysteries of Orpheus, Dionysus, Demeter and Persephone, Mithra, Isis and Osiris, etc. According to the mysteries of Orpheus, one of the things you were to say was, “I am a child of Earth and the starry Heaven, but Heaven is my home”. Here again, you have to be in the club, and you have to know the secret words. In ancient Judaism, the sins of the Jewish people were magically put into a goat (scapegoat) on the Day of Atonement. Here again, you have to be “in the club” and you (or the priest) have to know the secret words (Lev. 16:21-22). Modern Jews no longer do this, knowing that God hears our prayers. Judaism in its early years presented a shadowy Afterlife called Sheol which was very similar to the Hades of early Greece. Jewish writing from 400 – 100 BCE which is found in the Catholic, Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic Christian Bibles (which Protestants refer to as the Apocrypha) have some references to a Heaven or Hell state prior to the last judgment (II Esdras 7:75-101). The Apocryphal books also abound with angels who are named (e.g. Raphael in the Book of Tobit). The Jewish Pseudepigrapha (200 BCE – 70 CE) have Heaven and Hell (especially Enoch I, II, and III). These books of Enoch are not in the Hebrew Bible, and only 1st Enoch made it into the Coptic Christian Bible. The books were, however used by the Essenes and figure into the Judaism prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The Rule of Community (also known as the Manual of Discipline) and the War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness in the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Essenes are especially rich in imagery of Heaven and Hell. After 70 CE, Rabbinic Judaism developed, and the resulting Hebrew Bible has references to Sheol, the Messianic Time and to the Last Judgment in the Book of Daniel. In Christianity, this magic level is practiced by those who say that “belief in Jesus” assures an exclusive ticket to Heaven. You have to be “in the club” (that is, be a Christian), and you have to know the secret words, which in Fundamentalist Christianity are found in John 3:16 or John 14:6. While Liberal Christians and many moderate Christians see Jesus as the “suffering servant” of Isaiah who died to bring us the word, Fundamentalist Christians delight in being “saved”. That belief alone will save you is an idea as old as the followers of the Hindu gods Shiva and Lord Krishna. Its positive side is the devotional path in which the followers identify with and emulate the god. In Christianity, we see this positive emulation in those kind and loving souls who model their lives on Jesus. One is reminded of the words of the beautiful old Gospel hymn, “In the Garden”: “He walks with me, and He talks with me, and He tells me I am His own”. In Hinduism, the devotional path is expressed in the prayer, “Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare”, in other words, “Krishna, Krishna, Redeemer, Redeemer”. Magic in Hinduism is best illustrated by the idea that if you die with the name of Vishnu or one of his incarnations, such as Rama or Krishna, on your lips all of your sins are taken away and you go straight to Nirvana (heaven). There are times when we all need a little magic. The last words of Gandhi were Rama, Rama. In Buddhism, magic is represented in the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Being “in the club” (that is, being Buddhist) and having your relative or a monk read the secret words of the Book of the Dead by your corpse. This will enable you to become aware in the Afterlife and chose the things which will assure you a good re-birth. Also in Pure Land Buddhism by invoking the name of the Buddha at death, you will be transported to a Pure Land of Bliss in the West by Amitabha (the Buddha of Infinite Light), who is also known as O-Mi-To (China) and Amida (Japan)(Flotz, 2004, p. 73; Nigosian, 2000, p. 89 ). There you can continue the process of liberation under blissful conditions. Another “savior” Bodhisattva is Ti- tsang and anyone who chants his name will have their sins wiped away (Teiser, 1988, p. 187). Having looked at the developmental level below judgment by deeds, let us look at the level above it --- UNIVERSALISM. The concept of Universalism as an idea is as old as Zoroaster. Around 1600 – 1200 BCE (like Moses, the exact date of his life is not know), Zoroaster preached these basic concepts; see if they sound familiar: “God - Satan, Good - Evil, Light - Darkness, Angels - Demons, Death - Judgment, Heaven - Hell, and at the end of time, Resurrection of the Body and Life Everlasting”. He also preached that, “There is a long period of punishment for the wicked and reward for the pious, but thereafter, eternal joy shall reign forever” (Yasna 30.11). In other words, Hell is for rehabilitation, not for torture. This idea may be as old as Zoroaster, but it is as new as modern-day near- death experiencers, many of whom died into Hell but found themselves rescued when they called out to God or (in the West) called out to God or Jesus. In Judaism, Universalism is reflected in the Messianic Time described primarily in the Book of Isaiah (Is 2:2 & 4, 12:1-2, 25:6-8, 39:3, 5, 66:18 & 23, Jer 31:31- 34). The Rabbis of the Midrash say that one can stay in Hell only one year. In Christianity, the idea of Universalism is a very old and enduring theological position. Its major proponent in early Christianity was Origen (185 – 254 CE). In the nineteenth century, the Universalist Church was for a time the fifth or sixth largest denomination in the United States. In the twenty-first century, Universalism is advocated by Christians from diverse backgrounds, including some post-Vatican II Catholics and Primitive Baptists. The Biblical references which support Universal Salvation are second in number only to Good Works as the way to Salvation. Other religions have Universalist hopes too. Although not in the Koran, it is written in the Hadith (the oral history of Mohammad) that, “Surely a day will come over Hell when there shall not be a human soul in it”. The Bahai religion sees a continuous progression of souls toward perfection after death. In the East, Hinduism and its children --- Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism --- all allow for the potential for all to be saved. When Pam and I attended the Jade Buddha Temple a few years ago, they were singing, “We are not discouraged by the time it takes to save all the humans and all of the animals”. When one looks at the plight of humanity through the eyes of a parent, it is easy to see that Universalism makes sense. God is infinitely nicer than the best human beings you know. If you are a panentheist like me, you know that God is in all of us, and we are all in God. God knows the assets and limitations of each human soul. Unlike the State Board of Pardons and Parole, God knows how to rehabilitate people. Once upon a time before time mattered, people worshiped the Great Spirit, saw every living thing as possessing a spirit, and saw Afterlife as a Happy Hunting Ground. That sounds Universalist to me. So maybe we have come full circle. To quote Jesus in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, “Have you discovered the beginning, then, so that you are seeking the end? For where the beginning is, the end will be.” As a Universalist Christian, I look forward to the time when, as Jesus taught, God will save the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son. This article, "Magic, Deeds, and Universalism", is an appendix in Dr. Vincent 's latest book : The GOLDEN THREAD, GOD'S PROMISE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION. Reading Baha’u’llah in Indiana by Derek Lee Parker “We have taken the inner essence of revelation and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand truthful unto the Covenant of God.” - from the preamble to The Hidden Words of Baha’u’llah I am not a member of the Bahai Faith. I do not believe that the prophet Baha’u’ llah is either the second coming of Christ, nor the Hidden Imam of Shia Islam. I do not believe that the present Covenant of God is for all humanity to unite in the Bahai Faith. And yet I still find Baha’u’llah’s book The Hidden Words to be a compelling read. So how do I dare study the scripture of a faith that is not my own? The liberal Baptist theologian, Mark Heim, has lamented how the most rigid of liberal approaches to interfaith study try to force all the world religions onto a single path. In other words, this approach attempts to shoe-horn all religions into a single universal religion (which may not be the same thing as Universalism). If I followed this approach, I might be inclined to say that, “When Bahais talk of their covenant of world unity, what they really mean is my Universalist belief in universal salvation.” But this approach does violence to the Bahai Faith, and to the particular claims of their faith. Bahais may have faith in the unity of humankind, but they also disbelieve in universal salvation. According to the experience of their religious tradition, a person can reject the Covenant, and thus reject their connection with God, resulting in something akin to damnation, or at least putting your soul into a state of small-L limbo. Universal salvation is different, because it has faith that all humanity will eventually be reconciled, despite our various present rejections of one another. To pave over the Bahai Faith’s own claims, and dress them up to look like our own, contradicts basic Universalist principles about respecting other world religions. So how do I study The Hidden Words? Or why do I study this sacred Bahai text? I study this book because I find that it is a compelling read. What I find compelling is NOT the desire to baptize The Hidden Words into my own faith, but the opportunity for dialog with a deep theological thinker, of another tradition, who might in turn illumine aspects of my own tradition. Baha’u’llah and I might agree that the foundation of this dialog is our common humanity. I would add that I also have a need to better understand my Bahai neighbors. And so we are left with the human context and content of this sacred text. The context is emotionally moving. The author, Baha’u’llah, was a released political prisoner, from 19th century Persia. While chained naked in the notorious Black Pit of Tehran, he had a revelation from God that his pen would triumph where the sword could never have victory. Upon his release, he fled west to Baghdad, then under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Some sources claim that he wrote The Hidden Words in Baghdad, while other sources claim he wrote the book while on retreat, alone in the wild highlands of Kurdistan. In any event, this makes The Hidden Words along with The Seven Valleys, two of the oldest Bahai sacred writings. There is much here for me to discuss with Baha’u’llah, across the ages and miles. And any question that I can ask of Baha’u’llah and his teachings, I can also ask of myself and my own faith. For example, what are the spiritual dimensions of love? In Part 1, lesson 5 of The Hidden Words, Baha’u’llah writes that “If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no way reach thee.” According to Baha’u’llah love is bound by a reciprocal condition. It is defined by a two-way street. Divine love can not reach those who do not love in return. And I can see a very important truth in this. For example, if one spouse does not love the other, it is difficult for that love to reach the estranged partner. This is a truth that I have seen over and over in the divorces of some of my friends and family. I can then ask the same question of my own Universalist tradition, “What are the spiritual dimensions of love?” Two things, come to mind. First, there is the old Universalist fascination with the teaching of Saint Paul (Romans 8: 38-39) that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God.” And “nothing else in all creation” probably includes our own hard hearts. Second there is Hosea Ballou’s philosophical musing that if Jesus taught that it was unethical to love only those who love ourselves, does this mean God only loves those who love God? If it is unethical for humans to love only those who already love us, isn’t it also unethical for God to do the same regarding those who don’t already love God? Love, therefore, must become wide in its embrace. There’s quite a challenge here. In posing a question to my own faith, through this conversation with Baha’u’llah, I’ve discovered a wider hope expressed in Universalism. But I can’t be smug or feel superior about this, because I did find a truth in Baha’u’llah’s teaching that love must be mutual. So if love is so widely embracing, but it must also be mutual, what are we to think? Are these truths contradictory? I can not comment on the challenge for Bahais in this conversation, but I can comment on the challenge to Universalism in this conversation. Universalism has often been too blind to the challenges against religious love. Our wider hope is a mere sentiment, when we fail to acknowledge the painful challenge of love between the estranged. And when we ignore this pain and struggle, under the varnish of sappy religious sentiment, we fail in our fellowship with all humanity. Estrangement makes the fulfillment of love almost impossible. But reconciliation is the ministry of love’s outreach, the antidote to estrangement, and the ministry of our Universalist faith. I dare to read and study the scriptures of other faiths, not to conquer them for my own church, but to provoke deeper understanding of the human condition, and to challenge myself to deepen my own faith. And through this dialog, religious liberals of both the Universalist and Bahai varieties, can help each other be the best that we can be. Derek Lee Parker is a UU minister presently serving liberal churches outside the UUA. He divides his ministry between service as Education Minister at the Friends Meeting of Irvington, Indiana; and as Administrator of Programs for National Episcopal Health Ministries. |

