Baha’is and the Doctrine of Incarnation
Tom Tai-Seale | MAR 21, 2014 | PART 29 IN SERIES RECONCILING THE RELIGIONS
The views expressed in our content reflect individual perspectives and do not represent the authoritative views of the Baha'i Faith.
The response is likewise from an individual perspective and is not itself authoritative, but does rest on authoritative doctrine.
The word “incarnation” literally means “embodied in flesh.”
In a religious context, incarnation usually means that God descends from heaven and becomes human. Baha’is do not accept the doctrine of incarnation. Many Christians do. But what is the doctrine of incarnation? Let’s examine the doctrine and see what we can find.
OK.
To be fair, the doctrine of the incarnation is controversial even within Christianity. The doctrine is hard to state correctly, harder still to interpret correctly, and impossible to know if the “correct” interpretation is actually correct.
This is in fact far from fair ... I rather think it's an exaggeration to pave the way for a refutation of the doctrine. The vast majority of Christians understand and accept the quite simple formula.
For example, if a Christian were to take the most obvious derivation and explain that the incarnation means that God took on the form of Jesus (and later the Holy Spirit), that Christian would be a heretic because this concept, known as Monarchism, was condemned within Christianity.
Wrong on two points:
There is no heretical concept of 'Monarchism'.
I assume the author means 'Monarchianism', a view declared heretical during the Christological debates of the 2nd/3rd century.
In fact there are two types of Monarchianism:
Adoptionism proposes the entirely human Jesus was deified (adopted) either at his baptism or at his ascension.
Modalistic Monarchianism holds God to be one who appears in different "modes" as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However Modalists uphold the doctrine of incarnation.
To clarify the point, a modern Christian theologian, Francis Young, writes:
It's Frances Young, and that's one subjective viewpoint.
"The simple equation Jesus=God not only fails to represent what Christian tradition has claimed, but is distinctly odd. To reduce all of God to a human incarnation is virtually inconceivable, a fact to which Trinitarian doctrine is the traditional response." – The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 35 (emphasis in the original)
Well the doctrine of the Incarnation does not reduce 'all of God' to a human incarnation – so it's a moot point.
(Indeed Frances Young said this:
I find myself able to say: “I see God in Jesus,” and “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” and other such traditional statements without necessarily having to spell it out in terms of a literal incarnation. I find salvation in Christ, because in him God is disclosed to me as a “suffering God.” God is not only disclosed in him, nor is revelation confined to “biblical times”; but Jesus is the supreme disclosure which opens my eyes to God in the present, and while remaining a man who lived in a particular historical situation, he will always be the unique focus of my perception of and response to God."
(Debating the Incarnation) )
One thing wrong with the concept that Jesus=God is that it implies that God Himself suffered and died.
Which is why the Christian tradition is emphatic on the point that God neither suffered nor died ... This is a Straw Man if you think it relates to the Doctrine of Incarnation.
The concept leaves us to wonder how God (Jesus) managed the affairs of the universe from His earthly seat ...
Oh dear ... the ignorance of traditional Christian doctrine here is telling.
If one is going to dialogue towards 'reconciling religions' one really ought, at the very least, make some effort to understand what those religions say and believe. So far there has been no mention whatsoever of the actual doctrine, of the two natures in one person, that is the traditional orthodox definition of the Incarnation.
... and why the New Testament seems intent on maintaining a distinction between them, e.g. Father and Son?
Good grief!
Ultimately, almost all Christians reject the concept that Jesus=God, because it is in fact not Christian.
Utter nonsense, as clearly the vast majority of Christians believe Jesus is God, incarnate in man, two natures in one person ... more flawed logic.
Maurice Wells, a Christian theologian writes:
OK, another excerpt from the same book.
Again, If you're going to try and reconcile religious viewpoints, taking a minority stance is hardly the place to start. So far the author has not addressed the doctrine as it is declared, but simply sought to undermine it, resting on the opinions of two peoiple.
"... the concept of myth is frequently employed, especially in the chapters by Maurice Wiles, to express the modern-day “demythologized” christological doctrine which is being offered as a replacement for the traditional notion. This ambiguity is never resolved in The Myth of God Incarnate."
"In addition to the above confusion, the authors tend to strike a condescending note when speaking of the theological beliefs and/or language of earlier Christian thinkers. Repeatedly we are told, in effect, that those incarnational modes of thought may have served more primitive minds well, but they will hardly do for us today. This might be termed the “man-come-of-age fallacy” -- the assumption that later interpretations are ipso facto better, and that at any cost the contemporary mind must not be offended. Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this posture is its naive confidence in the state of current scientific knowledge. One need he no romanticist to question the basis of such confidence when many scientists themselves are the first to admit the limits of their knowledge."
(Debating the Incarnation)
The roots of this belief lie in scattered phrases in the Gospel that were later shaped by church leaders and theologians into an incarnation concept, and eventually merged with other ideas to form a complex doctrine about the nature of Christ...
Nope. The belief is there in The New Testament. Paul clearly believed it. So did John. So did Peter. So did Thomas.
And when this doctrine became official, it changed the nature of Christianity, making it very difficult for Christians to accept any more recent Prophet or Manifestation of God.
Well that was never on the cards, was it? They were told the Holy Spirit would come, which He did ... so no need for any other ...
Many, if not most, of the world’s major Faiths have gradually gone through this process. Here’s a general outline of how it works: the Prophet appears and teaches a message that brings people together and calls to their higher nature and spiritual capacities. Then, after the Prophet and founder of the new Faith leaves this mortal world, authorities emerge—usually in the form of a priesthood or a clergy of some type.
OK so far ... the Universal House of Justice represents the 'authority' going forward.
Gradually, a clerical establishment emerges that narrows authorized belief, often focusing on arcane distinctions that have the effect of re-defining, re-interpreting, and sometimes re-inventing the teachings of the Prophet.
Oh, that's a somewhat prejudicial and worldly view ... One could equally argue that the 'clerical establishment' preserves the truth from error.
Ultimately, the clerical class finds ways to distinguish their Faith above all others, outlawing or discrediting all others across all time.
As the Baha'i discredits those elements of other faiths which they do not endorse.
The incarnation is one such re-invention.
No, it's not, and the author hasn't really made a point that it is.
If you look carefully at Christ’s own statements, as the Gospel recorded them, you’ll see that the idea of incarnation was never expressed during Christ’s lifetime.
Wrong again.
The Baha’i teachings clearly say that the idea of incarnation is a metaphorical one, not a literal one.
That may well be their interpretation, with regard to Christ, it's short-sighted.
"This we must understand through logical and scientific evidences, for if religious principles do not accord with science and reason, they do not inspire the heart with confidence and assurance…."
But then no Revelation, nor Manifestation, is demonstrable through 'scientific evidences', and the principles of incarnation do accord with science and reason – so we are confident and assured!
Human 'science and reason' are of the world and the things of this world. The things of God are not of the world ... so then it would appear Abdu’l-Baha undermines his own dogmas.
In short, this is in no wise an attempt to 'reconcile religions', as the author declares – indeed, never once does the author engage with the actual doctrine as it is declared.
Tom Tai-Seale | MAR 21, 2014 | PART 29 IN SERIES RECONCILING THE RELIGIONS
The views expressed in our content reflect individual perspectives and do not represent the authoritative views of the Baha'i Faith.
The response is likewise from an individual perspective and is not itself authoritative, but does rest on authoritative doctrine.
The word “incarnation” literally means “embodied in flesh.”
In a religious context, incarnation usually means that God descends from heaven and becomes human. Baha’is do not accept the doctrine of incarnation. Many Christians do. But what is the doctrine of incarnation? Let’s examine the doctrine and see what we can find.
OK.
To be fair, the doctrine of the incarnation is controversial even within Christianity. The doctrine is hard to state correctly, harder still to interpret correctly, and impossible to know if the “correct” interpretation is actually correct.
This is in fact far from fair ... I rather think it's an exaggeration to pave the way for a refutation of the doctrine. The vast majority of Christians understand and accept the quite simple formula.
For example, if a Christian were to take the most obvious derivation and explain that the incarnation means that God took on the form of Jesus (and later the Holy Spirit), that Christian would be a heretic because this concept, known as Monarchism, was condemned within Christianity.
Wrong on two points:
There is no heretical concept of 'Monarchism'.
I assume the author means 'Monarchianism', a view declared heretical during the Christological debates of the 2nd/3rd century.
In fact there are two types of Monarchianism:
Adoptionism proposes the entirely human Jesus was deified (adopted) either at his baptism or at his ascension.
Modalistic Monarchianism holds God to be one who appears in different "modes" as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However Modalists uphold the doctrine of incarnation.
To clarify the point, a modern Christian theologian, Francis Young, writes:
It's Frances Young, and that's one subjective viewpoint.
"The simple equation Jesus=God not only fails to represent what Christian tradition has claimed, but is distinctly odd. To reduce all of God to a human incarnation is virtually inconceivable, a fact to which Trinitarian doctrine is the traditional response." – The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 35 (emphasis in the original)
Well the doctrine of the Incarnation does not reduce 'all of God' to a human incarnation – so it's a moot point.
(Indeed Frances Young said this:
I find myself able to say: “I see God in Jesus,” and “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” and other such traditional statements without necessarily having to spell it out in terms of a literal incarnation. I find salvation in Christ, because in him God is disclosed to me as a “suffering God.” God is not only disclosed in him, nor is revelation confined to “biblical times”; but Jesus is the supreme disclosure which opens my eyes to God in the present, and while remaining a man who lived in a particular historical situation, he will always be the unique focus of my perception of and response to God."
(Debating the Incarnation) )
One thing wrong with the concept that Jesus=God is that it implies that God Himself suffered and died.
Which is why the Christian tradition is emphatic on the point that God neither suffered nor died ... This is a Straw Man if you think it relates to the Doctrine of Incarnation.
The concept leaves us to wonder how God (Jesus) managed the affairs of the universe from His earthly seat ...
Oh dear ... the ignorance of traditional Christian doctrine here is telling.
If one is going to dialogue towards 'reconciling religions' one really ought, at the very least, make some effort to understand what those religions say and believe. So far there has been no mention whatsoever of the actual doctrine, of the two natures in one person, that is the traditional orthodox definition of the Incarnation.
... and why the New Testament seems intent on maintaining a distinction between them, e.g. Father and Son?
Good grief!
Ultimately, almost all Christians reject the concept that Jesus=God, because it is in fact not Christian.
Utter nonsense, as clearly the vast majority of Christians believe Jesus is God, incarnate in man, two natures in one person ... more flawed logic.
Maurice Wells, a Christian theologian writes:
OK, another excerpt from the same book.
Again, If you're going to try and reconcile religious viewpoints, taking a minority stance is hardly the place to start. So far the author has not addressed the doctrine as it is declared, but simply sought to undermine it, resting on the opinions of two peoiple.
"... the concept of myth is frequently employed, especially in the chapters by Maurice Wiles, to express the modern-day “demythologized” christological doctrine which is being offered as a replacement for the traditional notion. This ambiguity is never resolved in The Myth of God Incarnate."
"In addition to the above confusion, the authors tend to strike a condescending note when speaking of the theological beliefs and/or language of earlier Christian thinkers. Repeatedly we are told, in effect, that those incarnational modes of thought may have served more primitive minds well, but they will hardly do for us today. This might be termed the “man-come-of-age fallacy” -- the assumption that later interpretations are ipso facto better, and that at any cost the contemporary mind must not be offended. Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this posture is its naive confidence in the state of current scientific knowledge. One need he no romanticist to question the basis of such confidence when many scientists themselves are the first to admit the limits of their knowledge."
(Debating the Incarnation)
The roots of this belief lie in scattered phrases in the Gospel that were later shaped by church leaders and theologians into an incarnation concept, and eventually merged with other ideas to form a complex doctrine about the nature of Christ...
Nope. The belief is there in The New Testament. Paul clearly believed it. So did John. So did Peter. So did Thomas.
And when this doctrine became official, it changed the nature of Christianity, making it very difficult for Christians to accept any more recent Prophet or Manifestation of God.
Well that was never on the cards, was it? They were told the Holy Spirit would come, which He did ... so no need for any other ...
Many, if not most, of the world’s major Faiths have gradually gone through this process. Here’s a general outline of how it works: the Prophet appears and teaches a message that brings people together and calls to their higher nature and spiritual capacities. Then, after the Prophet and founder of the new Faith leaves this mortal world, authorities emerge—usually in the form of a priesthood or a clergy of some type.
OK so far ... the Universal House of Justice represents the 'authority' going forward.
Gradually, a clerical establishment emerges that narrows authorized belief, often focusing on arcane distinctions that have the effect of re-defining, re-interpreting, and sometimes re-inventing the teachings of the Prophet.
Oh, that's a somewhat prejudicial and worldly view ... One could equally argue that the 'clerical establishment' preserves the truth from error.
Ultimately, the clerical class finds ways to distinguish their Faith above all others, outlawing or discrediting all others across all time.
As the Baha'i discredits those elements of other faiths which they do not endorse.
The incarnation is one such re-invention.
No, it's not, and the author hasn't really made a point that it is.
If you look carefully at Christ’s own statements, as the Gospel recorded them, you’ll see that the idea of incarnation was never expressed during Christ’s lifetime.
Wrong again.
The Baha’i teachings clearly say that the idea of incarnation is a metaphorical one, not a literal one.
That may well be their interpretation, with regard to Christ, it's short-sighted.
"This we must understand through logical and scientific evidences, for if religious principles do not accord with science and reason, they do not inspire the heart with confidence and assurance…."
But then no Revelation, nor Manifestation, is demonstrable through 'scientific evidences', and the principles of incarnation do accord with science and reason – so we are confident and assured!
Human 'science and reason' are of the world and the things of this world. The things of God are not of the world ... so then it would appear Abdu’l-Baha undermines his own dogmas.
In short, this is in no wise an attempt to 'reconcile religions', as the author declares – indeed, never once does the author engage with the actual doctrine as it is declared.
