<Back to Stonehaven Press Home Page> <Links to Documentation>
CHRISTIANS FLOCKING
TO BAHA'I BELIEFS ABOUT THE BIBLE
by Gary L. Matthews
copyright (c) 1999 by Stonehaven Press LLP
(This article may be freely circulated, for
non-commercial use only, by Baha'is among members of the Baha'i Faith.)
Barriers to belief in Baha'u'llah are being shattered by a
revolution in the way rank-and-file American Christians interpret the Bible.
However unknowingly, the Christian public is embracing Baha'i views
of all the hot-button doctrinal issues that once frustrated Baha'i
efforts to attract Christian believers.
At least one-third -- and in most cases, clear majorities -- already
agree with Baha'i teachings concerning God, religious oneness, Bible
authenticity, the Resurrection and Virgin Birth of Jesus, the
Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Satan, Heaven and Hell. Similar shifts are
broadening the way believers understand Incarnation, original sin and
other classic creeds that once divided them from other faiths. All
these trends signal a new openness toward spiritual views of Christ's
Second Coming.
Street-level Christianity is thus taking on a Baha'i "look and
feel" -- a grassroots theology closer in substance and spirit to
Baha'u'llah's teachings than to the formal creeds of any established
church. Such trends are driving millions of Christians to seek a new
spiritual home more in line with their needs and thinking.
These startling conclusions emerge from an analysis of surveys
published by the Barna Research Group (Ventura, California), a
well-respected market-research firm. George Barna, the company's
founder, is a veteran pollster and evangelical Christian who conducts
opinion research for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, The
Disney Channel, Focus on the Family and other organizations. His many
books include best-sellers such as "The Index of Leading
Spiritual Indicators" (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1996) and
"The Second Coming of the Church" (Nashville: Word
Publishing, 1998).
The following report, based on Barna's statistical results, explores
how Americans think and feel about Christianity, and correlates their
attitudes with relevant Baha'i teachings. It documents the
observation by the Universal House of Justice that "powerful
spiritual forces are at work in the hearts of the people" of
North America (Ridvan 153).
Concluding thoughts will indicate, among other things, how these
forces open an unprecedented opportunity for Baha'i teaching -- a
window likely to close within a few years unless our communities
mobilize rapidly to take advantage of it.
Christianity in Transition
Barna's findings show that Americans are steadfast in their
commitment to, and self-identification with, Christianity; in their
pervasive belief in the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and in
their interest and overall confidence in the Bible. These measures of
faith commitment remain not only high but remarkably stable over
time. What is changing, according to Barna's data, is the way people
interpret biblical teachings, interact with established churches, and
practice their faith.
These changes foreshadow trouble for the institutional Church, which,
Barna writes, "is losing influence and adherents faster than any
other major institution in the nation" (Second Coming, 1). He
notes that "a majority of people who made a first-time
'decision' for Christ were no longer connected to a Christian church
within just eight weeks of having made such a decision!" (Second
Coming, 2).
Given the rapid advance of Baha'i-style ideals (which Barna calls
"heretical" [Second Coming, 23]), it is not surprising that
"more and more Americans are evaluating what other faith groups
have to offer ... People brazenly [this is Barna's word] evaluate a
variety of faith groups, while maintaining the Christian label. This
unashamed flirtation with hitherto off-limits faith groups is
facilitated by core beliefs about the virtue and validity of all faiths.
"Most Americans believe there is no 'right' faith; that all of
the world's major faiths teach the same lessons; and that all people
pray to the same gods, no matter what names they use for those
deities. Baby Busters [Barna's name for those born between 1963 and
1985] are actually the first generation in American history in which
a majority of those who are seeking a religious faith to embrace are
starting their spiritual journey with a faith group other than
Christianity" (Second Coming, 67-8).
Barna adds sadly: "Diversity and tolerance have clearly edged
past the boundaries of political ideology and racial acceptance and
invaded the religious realm" (ibid. 68).
While Barna's figures seem based on sound scientific methodology,
Baha'is must approach with caution his personal judgments about them.
Time and again, his strict evangelical orthodoxy leads him to charge
fellow-Christians with "waning" in their "commitment
to biblical Christianity" (Index, chap. 1), simply because they
no longer share his hardline interpretations. The results can be comical:
He notes, for example, that 53 percent of all American adults believe
"All people pray to the same god or spirit, no matter what name
they use for that spiritual being". Barna claims this is in
"contradiction" (his word) to the Bible's teaching that
"There is only one God who can justify people" (Second
Coming, 20-1). A Baha'i might ask, "Where is the contradiction?"
Similarly, Barna states repeatedly that most Americans "say
there is no such thing" as the Holy Spirit (Second Coming, 22).
Yet 70%, according to his own 1994 figures, claim they
"consistently allow [their lives] to be guided by the Holy
Spirit" (Trinity Archive)! Why this discrepancy? Barna's real
beef, it turns out, is that 61% use the expression "Holy
Spirit" to denote symbolically the living power and presence of
God (Second Coming, 21). Such usage conforms precisely to a Baha'i
interpretation of the Bible. Although this hardly constitutes a claim
of nonexistence, Barna treats it as such because he defines the Holy
Spirit differently.
These and many more examples illustrate his seeming inability to
distinguish between people who reject the Bible outright, and devout
believers whose interpretations merely vary from his own.
Despite his discontent with the new wind blowing through Christendom,
Barna acknowledges that it has not diminished the fervor of people's
faith. "... while substantial changes have occurred in people's
values and lifestyles during the Nineties," he states in a press
release (1 Sept. 1999), "commitment to Christianity has remained
relatively unchanged during the decade ... the net effect has been
one of stability ...
"The data demonstrate that the bulk of the decline in Christian
commitment has been in faith practices, not in beliefs
[emphasis added]. The largest drops in activity from 1991 to 1999
were experienced regarding worship service attendance, Bible reading
and prayer. The only beliefs from among the ten tested that
experienced similarly significant declines during the same period
were the notion that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it
teaches and people's understanding of who God is."
******************************
******* THE DATA *******
******************************
Below are a variety of survey results culled
from the online archives of the Barna
Research Group. The first set reflect various measures of the
strength of Christian commitment, faith and belief. The next set
presents Baha'i teachings that relate to the Bible, along with survey
results showing what American Christians believe about the ideas
these teachings embody.
For the complete text of Barna's research archives, from which the
following figures are abstracted, please refer to his web site: <http://www.barna.org>.
(Or click here to download a "zip"
file containing relevant selections, reproduced by permission.)
Unless noted otherwise, all figures are quoted from these online
archives. Most are current as of 1999; when they are more than two or
three years older than that, the survey date is noted.
CHRISTIAN COMMITMENT
The following figures indicate how Americans see themselves in
relationship to Christianity.
Religious Identification
The number of American adults with a "very positive
impression" of Christianity is 91% (Second Coming, 67). The
percentage who actually call themselves Christians is 86% (ibid.),
while 39% call themselves "committed born-again Christians".
By most yardsticks, Christian self-identification is stronger among
blacks and hispanics than among whites. (For example, the percentage
of African-Americans who call themselves "committed born-again
Christians" is 61%, far higher than the 39% figure for whites.)
It is stronger among women than men, among Southerners than those
residing in other regions, and among older demographic groups than
younger ones. (For detailed breakdowns, see Barna's online archives.)
Among self-described Christians, 41% consider themselves
"absolutely committed" to Christianity, while 44% consider
themselves "moderately committed" (Index, chap. 1).
Jesus Christ
Nearly two out of three American adults (64%) say they have made
"a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important
in their life today". This 1999 figure is slightly down from the
67% high of a few years ago, but still somewhat higher than the 60%
level of the Eighties and early Nineties.
By landslide majorities, American adults testify to Christ's
miraculous conception, resurrection, redemptive power, and Second
Coming. The following percentage of Americans believe:
* that Jesus Christ was born to a virgin: 85% (1994)
* that Jesus Christ "was crucified, died and rose from the dead
and is spiritually alive today": 85% (1993)
* that "forgiveness of sins is possible only through faith in
Jesus Christ": 74% (1994)
* that the Second Coming is assured: "someday Jesus will come
back": 70% (1992)
The Bible
Virtually all Americans, according to George Barna, regard the Bible,
at the very least, as a "good book filled with important stories
and lessons" (Second Coming, 20). (He does not give a specific percentage.)
The percentage of American adults who believe that "all of the
miracles described in the Bible actually took place" is 73% (1994).
Such confidence in the Bible does not necessarily mean people believe
it is true word for word, or letter for letter. American adults who
say that "the Bible is totally accurate in all of its
teachings" constitute 60%.
According to Barna's surveys, this confidence in the Bible's absolute
accuracy is higher among minorities than others. Survey percentages
in 1999 were as follows: whites, 52%; blacks, 79%; hispanics, 63%.
But these statistics seem, at first glance, inconsistent with his
some of his other findings. In his website archive on regional
differences he writes: "Southerners are more likely than others
to believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of its
teachings. This belief is held by 47% of those living in the South,
38% of those in the Midwest, 31% of those in the West, and 31% of
those in the Northeast. (1999)"
Be that as it may, about 50% of American adults listen to Bible
preaching or teaching in a typical week (1998). About 34% of American
adults say they read the Bible in a typical week. (While this figure
is down from the 1992 high of 47%, it is somewhat higher than above
the 1995 figure of 31%, and near the 1988 level of 36%. Yearly
fluctuations of 3% to 5% are commonplace.)
Weekly Bible reading, like other religious yardsticks, correlates
with region, ethnicity and age. Southerners (47%), African-Americans
(62%) and Seniors (43%) are more likely to read the Bible weekly than
Northeasterners (25%), whites (31%) or Baby Boomers (those born in
1946-64) (30%). At 36%, "Baby Busters" (born 1963-85) are
significantly more likely to read the Bible than those of the
preceding generation.
ACCEPTANCE OF BAHA'I BELIEFS
Let us now look at how Americans in general, and Christians in
particular, view the Bible, as well as how these views correlate with
Baha'i interpretations.
Oneness of God and Religion
The Baha'i Faith "proclaims unequivocally the existence and
oneness of a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of
all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty"
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, 139).
Two out of three Americans (67%) believe in a God who is "the
all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the universe who rules the world
today". The remaining one-third hold various beliefs: "God
is the total realization of human potential"; "Everyone is
God"; "I don't know"; etc.
'Abdu'l-Baha stated: "The gift of God to this enlightened age is
the knowledge of the oneness of mankind and of the fundamental
oneness of religion" (Abdu'l-Baha in London, 19).
A majority of American adults (53%) now believe that "All people
pray to the same god or spirit, no matter what name they use for that
spiritual being." Four out of ten (40%) say that "All
religious faiths teach equally valid truths". Almost the same
number say "It doesn't matter what religious faith you follow
because they all teach the same lessons" (Second Coming, 21).
Bible Authenticity
A Baha'i view of the Bible must be carefully balanced:
"When Abdu'l-Baha states we believe what is in the Bible, He
means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken
literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the
Prophet" (Shoghi Effendi through his secretary, Lights of
Guidance, 495).
The Guardian further explains that while we cannot be sure of every
literal detail, neither can we dismiss any teaching as a "product
of imagination" if it is something the Bible "unmistakably
affirms" (Lights, 516). Our goal must be, rather, to discover
its true spiritual interpretation. The guiding principle here seems
to be 'Abdu'l-Baha's statement that "All the texts and teachings
of the [Old and New] Testaments have intrinsic spiritual
meanings" not to be taken literally (Promulgation of Universal
Peace, 459-60). It is in terms of these intended deeper meanings that
Baha'is regard the Bible as an "authentic Book" of inspired
scripture (Lights, 504) which speaks with "God-given
authority" (Promised Day is Come, 107).
How closely do Christian attitudes mirror this balanced spiritual perspective?
According to Barna's studies, six out of ten Americans regard the
Bible as "absolutely accurate" in all of its teachings.
(This figure rises to 79% for African-Americans, and 82% for
born-again Christians.)
However, 38% of Americans remain unconvinced that the Bible is
accurate in every detail, even though most regard it as a "good
book filled with important stories and lessons". This closely
parallels the Baha'i view of the Bible as true "in
substance" yet "not wholly authentic".
It is also possible that the percentage of Americans who embrace this
view is higher than the above figures suggest. While Barna's general
surveys indicate four out of ten Americans would agree with this
Baha'i perspective, his region-by-region surveys indicate that more
than half, in every region, would do so. (See above.)
Christ's Resurrection
Baha'i teachings describe Jesus Christ as having "risen from the
dead" (Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, 162) when
"that Divine Spirit resurrected and that body -- which is the
Divine Word -- arose" (Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha, 192). This
spiritual resurrection did not involve any resuscitation of His
physical remains, since "the resurrections of the Divine
Manifestations are not of the body" (Some Answered Questions, 103):
"The 'Risen Christ' is the consciousness that came to His
disciples, grieving over His death, of His living reality; it was not
a physical thing but a spiritual realization" (Shoghi Effendi
through his secretary, Messages to the Antipodes, 256).
"Christ had an elemental body and a celestial form. The
elemental body was crucified, but the heavenly form is living and
eternal, and the cause of everlasting life" ('Abdu'l-Baha, Some
Answered Questions, 98).
The percentage of Christians who already embrace this spiritual
perspective is impressive. Most adult Americans (85%) believe that
Jesus Christ "was crucified, died and rose from the dead and is spiritually
alive today" (emphasis added). A very large number,
however, interpret this resurrection as a "spiritual
renaissance" (Second Coming, 22), saying His physical body did
not return to life after the crucifixion. This view is upheld by four
out of ten adult Americans, including 35% of all born-again Christians.
The Virgin Birth
The reality of Christ's miraculous Virgin Birth has always been among
a strong points of agreement between Baha'is and traditional
Christians. Baha'i teachings fully support the venerable Christian
belief that He was conceived without a human father, strictly through
the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Regarding this "the great miracle of the Christian faith"
(letter on the Guardian's behalf to an individual, 23 December 1948),
Shoghi Effendi conveyed the following comments through his secretary:
"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In the light of what
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha have stated concerning this subject it
is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct
intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was
quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need
not feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of
miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance,
however, has been minimized" (Lights, 490).
"What science calls a virgin birth we do not associate with that
of Jesus Christ, which we believe to have been a miracle and a sign
of His Prophethood. In this matter we are in entire agreement with
the most orthodox church views" (High Endeavors, 70).
Considering how eagerly millions of born-again Christians have been
reinterpreting Resurrection in non-material terms, one might expect
they would be doing so also with the doctrine of Virgin Birth. But
while a few theologians have been doing just that, their speculations
have had no measurable effect on the attitudes of the Christian on
the street. Nearly nine out of ten American adults (85%) accept with
confidence the historicity and literal truth of the Virgin Birth.
Thus "the position of Mary", writes Barna, "is secure ..."
Trinity and the Holy Spirit
Baha'is regard God as an unknowable Essence. However, the
Christ-figure or Manifestation becomes the earthly "Presence of
God" (Kitab-i-Iqan, 142) in the sense that He is the focal point
of the Holy Spirit (Some Answered Questions, 118). This Spirit is
variously defined as "the divine appearance" and "that
divine power":
"... the Holy Spirit and the Word are the appearance of God. The
Spirit and the Word mean the divine perfections that appeared in the
Reality of Christ ... Therefore, the Word and the Holy Spirit, which
signify the perfections of God, are the divine appearance. This is
the meaning of the verse in the Gospel which says: 'The Word was with
God, and the Word was God' [John 1:1]" ('Abdu'l-Baha, Some
Answered Questions, 206).
"... according to Christ ... the human spirit which is not
fortified by the presence of the Holy Spirit is dead and in need of
resurrection by that divine power ..." ('Abdu'l-Baha,
Promulgation, 182).
How closely do these Baha'i interpretations match American thinking?
Very closely, according to Barna's studies. Seven out of ten American
adults (70%) believe not only that the Holy Spirit is real, but that
they "consistently allow [their] life to be guided" by it
(1994). At the same time, 61% say "the Holy Spirit is a symbol
of God's presence or power, but is not a living entity" (1997).
Among those who define the expression "Holy Spirit" in this
figurative manner are 55% of all born-again Christians.
So natural does this interpretation sound to Baha'is that we might
easily miss its import. As Barna discerns, it has far-reaching
implications for the way in which American Christians understand the
Trinity. (By "Trinity" he means the relationship between
God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit). This understanding becomes crucial
as we strive to make clear the station of Baha'u'llah.
Catholic theology (like most Protestant theologies) defines the One
God as a fusion and synthesis of three "persons" -- Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. Each of these entities, in its own right, is God
in His essence and totality. Yet each is also a distinct individual,
separate from the others. Some theologians defend this oddly
counter-intuitive doctrine with analogies meant to make it
comprehensible. Others acknowledge its inconsistency, but prefer
simply to live with the contradiction. The latter argue that since an
all-powerful God can do "anything", He can do even what is
logically impossible!
Be that as it may, the public no longer believes any such dogma. So
deeply does this disturb George Barna that his frustration erupts
repeatedly in strident rhetoric: Throughout his commentaries, he
accuses his fellow-Christians of denying the existence of the Holy
Spirit (even though most turn to that very Spirit for daily
guidance). By this he means they no longer accept blindly his own
literal, traditional definition, which to him is the only
"biblical" one. This is doubly ironic since the Bible
contains neither the word "Trinity", nor any interpretation
even vaguely resembling the one to which Barna and other hard-liners cling.
Baha'is must not misread these statistics as justification for
lashing out at the Trinity as such. Most Americans probably would
agree with 'Abdu'l-Baha that the Trinity, rightly interpreted, has a
biblical basis. "... the essential oneness of Father, Son and
Spirit", says the Master, "has many meanings and
constitutes the foundation of Christianity" (Promulgation, 154).
The good news for us is that masses of Christians are cultivating a
clearer, more sophisticated, more truly Bible-based, Baha'i-style
understanding of this "essential oneness".
Satan
It's official: Most Americans (Christians included) now reject a
literal devil. To see this development in context, let's take a quick
Baha'i refresher course:
Baha'u'llah affirms both the existence and the deadliness of the
"Satan of self" (Iqan, 112), a Satan similarly defined by
'Abdu'l-Baha as "the insistent self" (Selections, 256), the
"natural inclinations of the lower nature" (Promulgation 287):
"This lower nature in man is symbolized as Satan -- the evil ego
within us, not an evil personality outside" (ibid.).
Shoghi Effendi adds that this lower self is
"... the ego, the dark, animalistic heritage each one of us has,
the lower nature that can develop into a monster of selfishness,
lust, brutality and so on. It is this self we must struggle against
..." (Lights, 113).
The Guardian explains that "devil or satan is symbolic of evil
and dark forces" (Lights, 514) which have no independent reality
of their own. Instead, they have "negative existence",
meaning they "exist" simply as an absence of goodness. This
expression -- "negative existence" -- takes on special
importance as the Guardian's inspired interpretation of what
'Abdu'l-Baha meant by His widely quoted comment that "evil is
non-existent". Writing on Shoghi Effendi's behalf, his secretary states:
"We must never take one sentence in the Teachings and isolate it
from the rest ... We know absence of light is darkness, but no one
would assert darkness was not a fact. It exists even though it is the
absence of something else. So evil exists, too, and we cannot
close our eyes to it, even though it is a negative existence"
(Lights, 513-514; emphasis added).
Turning to Main Street, U.S.A., how acceptable are these Baha'i perspectives?
Six out of ten American adults (59%) believe that "Satan is not
a living being but is a symbol of evil" (1999). Among Catholics,
the number who embrace this Baha'i view rises to 70%. Among
Protestant mainline church attenders, the figure is 62%; among
non-mainline Protestant church attenders, it is 49%. Even among those
classified as "born-again" Christians, almost half -- a
good 45% -- regard Satan as a "symbol of evil" rather than
a living entity.
Nor can we infer from such figures that Americans are unaware of what
the Bible says about Satan and evil. Seven out of ten adults (69% in
a 1994 survey) know that the Bible describes Satan, or the devil, as
a rebellious angel who formerly served God in Heaven. Moreover, most
Americans affirm the truth of this and other doctrines which the
Bible "unmistakably affirms" -- a fact clear from Barna's
other surveys concerning public confidence in the Bible. The point is
that such readers uphold and defend this Bible teaching by
interpreting it figuratively.
These statistics (among others) also show clearly that American
Christians understand the principle of symbolic Bible interpretation.
It is undeniable that many already accept such interpretations, not
only regarding Satan but on many more points. As Baha'u'llah explains
in the Iqan (pp. 83-9), the key to attracting such Christians is not
to challenge the Bible, but to explain it correctly in biblical
language that affirms its real intent, while demonstrating its
harmony with our teachings.
Heaven and Hell
Among American Christians, the most popular view of Heaven and Hell
is the one which best corresponds to the Baha'i Teachings.
Baha'u'llah teaches that God's Presence is "the real Paradise
... of which the loftiest mansions of heaven are but a symbol"
(Gleanings, 70). But symbolic does not mean "imaginary" or "unreal":
"[Paradise] is a reality and there can be no doubt about it ...
Whosoever attaineth unto it God will aid him in this world below, and
after death He will enable him to gain admittance into Paradise whose
vastness is as that of heaven and earth ... Likewise apprehend thou
the nature of hellfire and be of them that truly believe"
(Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 189).
Paradise, then, is symbolic of God's Presence, a Presence which is
undeniably real. The "nature of hellfire" we must
"likewise apprehend" as symbolic of remoteness from God, a
remoteness which also is undeniably real:
"They that are the followers of the one true God shall, the
moment they depart out of this life, experience such joy and gladness
as would be impossible to describe, while they that live in error
shall be seized with such fear and trembling ... as nothing can
exceed" (Gleanings, 171).
"How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the
essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his
flight unto the celestial Concourse. And how often hath a devout
believer, at the hour of his soul's ascension, been so changed as to
fall into the nethermost fire" (Iqan, 194-195).
American thought concerning Hell is fragmented. By far the strongest
school of thought, however, is the one that most closely matches
Baha'i belief.
Fewer than three in ten American adults (31%) see Hell as an actual
location, "a place of physical torment where people may be
sent" (1996).
But nearly four out of ten (37%) say Hell "is not a place",
but represents, rather, a state of "separation from the presence
of God" (1996).
Barna's figures indicate that one in ten Americans remain undecided
about Hell, while two in ten (19%) say Hell is "merely a
symbolic term, not referring to a physical place" (1996).
This final figure (which could puzzle some Baha'is) is remarkably
revealing. At first blush it may appear to contradict the previous
statistic. Four in ten say Hell "represents" separation
from God, but "is not a place". (Baha'is typically would
call this a "symbolic" interpretation.) Yet now Barna tells
us that another two in ten view Hell as "merely a symbolic term,
not referring to a physical place". Are these not different ways
of saying the same thing? Should we not add the two categories,
concluding that six out of ten define "Hell" as symbolic?
The answer to both questions is "no": These categories
differ profoundly. The difference revolves around the way most
Americans use such expressions as "literal" and
"symbolic". This everyday-language usage contrasts sharply
with the somewhat technical way in which Baha'i scriptures employ the
same terms.
In Baha'i parlance, a statement is "symbolic" if it uses
the language of the five senses to describe spiritual realities
which, by their nature, lie beyond the limits of physical sense
perception. (See "Some Answered Questions", chapter 16.)
God, the Holy Spirit, the soul, and the unseen world are examples of
realities we can discuss only by using such figures of speech. By
labeling such terminology "symbolic", it is not our intent
to say that the concepts we are discussing are unreal or fictitious.
On the contrary, we emphasize our belief in their non-physical reality.
But among Americans generally (and Christians in particular), the
word "symbolic" often means unreal, imaginary, illusory, or
even delusional. This connotation is as far as possible from Baha'i
usage! To call something "symbolic" is then to deny its
underlying reality: no such thing exists; no such event ever
happened. Like Aesop's fable of the ants and the grasshopper, a
symbolic account may drive home some moral message. But the
"symbolic" label emphasizes, first and foremost, its
fictitious character.
Thus when Barna reports that two in ten Americans see Hell as
"merely symbolic", he seems to mean these regard it as
merely an illustrative fiction having no underlying reality. Such
respondents are poles apart from those who interpret Hell as
spiritual separation from God, but who view such separation as a
reality (non-physical or otherwise). Many of the latter would claim
to believe in a "literal Hell", even if they regard that
Hell as literally non-physical.
To communicate clearly with Christians, Baha'is must understand these
contrasting usages of "literal" and "symbolic".
To say (as many Baha'is do) that "we don't believe in Hell",
or even that "we believe Hell is merely symbolic", will
not, in most cases, accurately convey the intent of Baha'u'llah's
teaching. Christians, however, generally are quick to grasp
Baha'u'llah's own statements to the effect that Heaven "is a
reality"; that we "likewise apprehend" the "nature
of hellfire"; that the former consists of nearness to God, and
the latter of separation from God. Heaven and Hell, in other words,
are spiritual realities or conditions rather than geographical locations.
Incarnation
Nowhere do Barna's surveys appear to address directly the Incarnation
-- the classic Christian doctrine that "Jesus is God". Some
of his published findings suggest, however, that rank-and-file
Christians see this notion through increasingly skeptical eyes. The
very fact that Barna makes no explicit mention of it may mean it has
become, at best, a side issue.
Baha'u'llah explains that there is indeed a sense in which Jesus (or
any Manifestation) is indeed God, but another sense in which He is not:
"Manifold are Our relationships with God. At one time, We are He
Himself, and He is We Ourself. At another He is that He is, and We
are that We are" (Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, 43).
The Manifestation embodies the spiritual "Presence of God"
in the sense that He is "the complete incarnation of the names
and attributes of God" (World Order of Baha'u'llah, 112). Thus
Shoghi Effendi, quoting Jewish prophecy, refers to Baha'u'llah as
"neither more nor less than the incarnation of the 'Everlasting
Father'" (God Passes By, 94). But this similarity of terminology
must not be misread to mean He literally incarnates God's Essence,
for "the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal
it to men" (Gleanings 49). If the Infinite Absolute could
implode into a finite lump, He would "cease immediately to be
God" (World Order of Baha'u'llah, 112).
Christian churches and individual believers have interpreted
Incarnation in various ways. Some of these interpretations seem
compatible with Baha'i belief, others less so. Be that as it may,
Barna's polls suggest that growing numbers of Christians reject the
notion that Jesus was literally God, in His essence and totality.
As noted above, he does not use the specific term
"Incarnation" in his survey reports. He does note, however,
that 82% of American adults (in a 1992 survey) supported the belief
that "when Jesus was on earth He was as much a human being as
they are". A related finding is that 42% of American adults say
"when Jesus was on earth He committed sins, like other
people" (1999). Even among "born-again" Christians,
those who attribute sin to Christ number 34%. Across ethnicity, this
view commands the assent of 47% of Hispanics, 43% of whites, and 35%
of African- Americans.
Neither attitude seems to blend completely with Baha'i belief in the
essential infallibility and sinlessness of the Manifestation. Perhaps
more important, however, is that both views are radically
incompatible with any literal theory of Divine Incarnation. If we
attribute sin to Jesus Christ, we cannot say He is literally God (in
the latter's essence and totality) without saying that God, too, is a
sinner! Any such notion obviously is false by definition. One
reasonable inference from the Barna surveys, therefore, is that
Christians find themselves increasingly reluctant to identify Christ
literally and completely with the Divine Reality. This may mean more,
in the long run, to Baha'i teaching than any short-term confusion as
to the details of their relationship.
Original Sin
Another classic Christian doctrine is "original sin" -- the
belief that all human beings inherit the guilt of Adam's
transgression in the Garden of Eden. We often hear such statements as
"Baha'is don't believe in original sin, but Christians do",
or "Christians believe people are inherently bad, but Baha'is
believe they're inherently good." Such formulas seem at best
drastically oversimplified, and at worst needlessly divisive.
What most Christians really believe is that without divine
aid, we cannot manifest the latent goodness God has placed
potentially within us. By turning to God, we become heavenly;
otherwise we remain earthly. Some Christians express this belief by
saying human beings are "inherently evil".
What most Baha'is really believe is that with divine aid, we can
manifest the latent goodness God has placed potentially within us. By
turning to God, we become heavenly; otherwise we remain earthly. Some
Baha'is express this belief by saying human beings are
"inherently good".
This "controversy" is very much like arguing whether a
glass is half empty or half full. Be that as it may, Baha'is and
Christians who see such an "irreconcilable difference" as
grounds for divorce can take heart: The gulf is narrowing. According
to George Barna, most Americans now agree that human beings are
"inherently good" (Second Coming, 20)! (Barna does not give
an exact percentage.)
This doesn't mean, of course, that such people necessarily reject the
term "original sin" as a label for what they believe about
human nature. It simply means they interpret that belief in a manner
consonant with Baha'i teachings -- and indeed, with the Bible itself.
What matters is that this "issue" (whether real or
imagined) has long since ceased to divide Baha'is from rank-and-file Christians.
The Second Coming
"A great part of the teaching of Jesus Christ", explains
the Universal House of Justice, "concerned His Second Coming and
the preparation of His followers to be ready for it. The Baha'is
believe He has come" (Lights, 159). To teach Christians
effectively, Baha'is must have a clear understanding of this concept.
According to the Bible, the everlasting "Spirit" and
"Presence" of God is the pre-existent power through which
the world was created. This divine spirit -- also called the
"Word" (Logos) -- is in one sense identical with God, yet
in another sense distinct: "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
This ancient Reality is repeatedly described in the New Testament as
"the Christ". Jesus of Nazareth was "Jesus the
Christ" in the sense that He was the earthly embodiment of this
heavenly Spirit (sometimes called the Christ Spirit). Thus to
Baha'is, the "Return of Christ" does not mean the return of
Jesus, the individual human being. It means the return, in a new
human temple, of the same pre-existent Christ Spirit He manifested --
the earthly "Spirit and Presence of God".
Baha'u'llah unmistakably identifies Himself as the Christ-figure who
fulfills this promise. "Followers of the Gospel," He
proclaims, "behold the gates of heaven are flung open. He that
had ascended unto it is now come." (World Order, 104).
'Abdu'l-Baha specifically refers to Baha'u'llah as the "Return
of Christ" (Some Answered Questions, 39, 41), while Shoghi
Effendi explains that "to Christendom" Baha'u'llah is
"Christ returned 'in the glory of the Father'" (God Passes
By, 94). Elsewhere he states,
"In accepting Baha'u'llah you have accepted Christ in His
appearance as the Father, as He Himself so clearly foretold. The
Catholic Church does not believe this; on the contrary, it still
awaits the Return of Christ" (Directives of the Guardian, 10).
"...we believe the Christ has come again, in Baha'u'llah, and
that all His promises have been gloriously fulfilled. No church would
tolerate one of its members believing such a thing, for the church is
still blindly waiting the Second Coming. Therefore it is obvious why
the Baha'is must leave the church, they are not leaving Christ, but
rather rallying to His support in the new day of His coming"
(Light of Divine Guidance II, 90).
Before Christians can accept Baha'u'llah as the Return of Christ, two
conditions must be in place: First, they must believe in, and take
seriously, Christ's own promise to return. Second, they must be
willing to consider an other-than-literal interpretation of this
"Second Coming". George Barna's research strongly suggests
that these conditions are falling neatly into place.
"The idea of a second coming of Jesus Christ", writes
Barna, "is real to most Americans. Seven out of ten (70%)
believe that someday Jesus will come back."
(This survey result, dated 1992, is somewhat older than most of
Barna's other statistics. Whether he has revisited this question in
more recent studies is not clear. He seems to see no reason, in any
case, to suppose public expectations of the Second Coming have
changed appreciably during the interim.)
Barna's surveys do not directly address how, or in what form,
Americans expect the Second Coming to occur. This may reflect the
fact that he, as an evangelical traditionalist, sees this in rigid
terms that admit no interpretation. Certainly many Christians take
literally the Bible's promise that "He cometh with clouds, and
every eye shall see Him" (Rev. 1:7).
Indications abound, however, that this rock-solid literalism is
crumbling -- or at least cracking in places. One sign is the
softening of views on Resurrection: As noted above, while 85% of
Americans believe Christ is "risen from the dead", most
interpret this to mean He is "spiritually alive today"
while 40% (including more than one out of three committed
born-agains) deny that He ever was physically resurrected.
This is significant because there always has been a strong link, in
Christian thinking, between literal Resurrection and a literal
Return. If we believe Jesus rose from death and ascended to heaven in
a physical body that still exists today, we almost have to believe He
will return in that same body. But if we believe He at some point
abandoned physical existence (whether before or after His
Resurrection), then the Christ Spirit no longer is encumbered by a
material body. There is then no logical Christian deterrent to
considering that His inner spiritual Reality might reappear in human
form with a new name, and a new outward identity.
The fact that Christians are rapidly embracing non-literal views of
Resurrection and other classic biblical doctrines suggests that they
may, if approached properly, be willing also to take a second look at
the Second Coming. In any case, the nature of Christ's
"return" has long been a live and controversial issue in
Christianity, giving rise to vastly differing interpretations. Many
Baha'is mistakenly assume that all Christians view Return in the same
rigidly literal way -- as a material "coming" in material
"clouds", seen by material "eyes". While this
interpretation is indeed widely held, there are others that also
command widespread support.
Many mainstream churches, for example (and most "liberal"
ones) long ago developed spiritual paradigms for the Second Coming.
Some of these carry impressive historical pedigrees. One such view
contends that the "return of Christ" symbolizes the daily
recurrence of the Lord's Spirit in the life of each believer. We
reconnect with Christ every morning when we rededicate ourselves to
Him, and feel His Holy Spirit flooding back: This is the
"return". All the sky-and-eye pictures, the angels and
trumpets and such, are viewed as symbolic of various aspects of this
perpetual "return", which replays itself daily in the life
of every true believer.
Another widely discussed scenario interprets the "return of
Christ" as a worldwide spiritual revival, a reawakening of the
masses to the reality and spiritual presence of Christ. In this
version, the "Second Coming" is historical as well as
personal. One well-known exponent of this interpretation was George
Lamsa, the famous Nestorian Christian. Though his views are anathema
to many ideological purists, Lamsa was a popular speaker at
evangelical churches and conferences, and his books remain widely
available in Christian bookstores.
Still another interpretation (which William Sears discusses in
"Thief in the Night") is the idea that Christ's
"return" occurred at the first Day of Pentecost, when the
Holy Spirit descended upon Christ's Disciples. While this view seems
never to have been as popular as some of the others described above,
it illustrates the diversity that characterizes Christian thinking
about Return.
Among all branches of Christianity, an ever-popular sermon topic is
"What if Christ came back today -- and we missed Him?" Many
times, of course, this is treated as a strictly hypothetical
question. But the fact that it is discussed at all shows that
Christians do speculate as to unconventional possibilities. And there
are prominent Christian authorities (such as James Kennedy) who
insist that Christians have no idea how Christ will return -- that
they may have misread the Second Coming prophecies as badly as the
Children of Israel misread those concerning His First Coming.
TEACHING CONSIDERATIONS
Baha'u'llah's principles of scripture interpretation are rapidly
penetrating grassroots Christian thought, just as His principles of
social justice have already penetrated secular thought. What policy
conclusions may we draw from these stunning findings?
First, Baha'is can teach Christians with confidence. On all the most
divisive and emotionally sensitive biblical issues, masses of
Christians already accept Baha'i interpretations (even when they do
not yet recognize them as such). Many more are aware of such
interpretations, and may be willing at least to consider them, if
approached properly.
Second, this receptivity creates a teaching opportunity of
unprecedented magnitude. Millions of American Christians are
dissatisfied with churches whose official dogmas no longer reflect
their own conclusions and spiritual instincts. Such Christians are
either abandoning the institutional Church, or
"church-hopping" in their search for a spiritual community
where they can feel at home. Baha'i teachings, attractively presented
in Christian-friendly language, can serve as a magnet and rallying
point for such seekers.
Third, this window of opportunity will not stay open forever. At
present, there seems to be no prominent Christian movement or
organization that so authentically reflects the emerging grassroots
consensus as do the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. This will change.
The speed of American cultural evolution virtually guarantees that
new movements and organizations will coalesce around this new
Baha'i-style Christianity -- but these will not necessarily be within
the Baha'i Faith itself. It is quite likely, on the contrary, that
they will not be. Only by acting now can we as Baha'is seize a
leadership role with regard to these issues. If we relinquish such a
role to others, any future efforts we make to publicize Baha'i
positions relative to Christianity may well be seen as "jumping
in front of a moving parade".
Fourth, we must introduce the Baha'i Faith to Christians as a
divinely ordained renewal and fulfillment of Christianity, and
Baha'u'llah as the Second Coming of Christ. This is simply an honest
portrayal of "the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past,
eternal in the future" (Gleanings, 136). Otherwise, Christians
will continue to misperceive our Faith as an "alternative
religion" seeking to discredit Christianity, and Baha'u'llah as
little more than a would-be replacement for Christ. To accept so
adversarial an image seems quixotic in a nation where more than nine
out of ten adults express a "very positive impression" of
Christianity, where almost that many call themselves Christian, and
where similarly overwhelming majorities profess devotion to Jesus
Christ as the virgin-born, resurrected Son of God destined to
reappear in His Second Coming.
Finally, George Barna's findings powerfully underscore the Ridvan 153
statement of the Universal House of Justice:
"In North America, there are opportunities for the advancement
of the process of entry by troops, the like of which presently exist
in no other place on earth ... Dear Friends, now must you commit
yourselves to the work of the Cause afresh, liberated from any
doubts, uncertainties or hesitations which may have impeded you in
the past. Every stratum of society must be brought within your
embrace, as you vigorously advance toward the goal of entry by troops
at this time when powerful spiritual forces are at work in the hearts
of the people."