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.
Interfaith