----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. Christopher Buck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Susan Maneck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "William Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sholeh A Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Quinn and Buck's articles
> PLEASE POST > > Dear Baha'i Studies Colleagues: > > I would like to thank Dr. Susan Maneck for her review of my abridged > article, "Baha'i Universalism and Native Prophets." I offer this > rejoinder to clarify some issues. Dr. Maneck states: > > "Buck concludes his essay by arguing that while it may not be possible > to add specific names to the list of officially acknowledged prophets > still Baha'i authorities might consider affirming the principle that > Messengers of God have appeared in the Americas. It strikes me that > Chris Buck is focusing on a non-existent problem." > > This is simply contrary to fact. And here's the test: Where, in the > authoritative Writings of the Central Figures, or in the letters of the > Guardian or the House, is this principle enunciated? The > answer--nowhere (at least not in specific terms). > > Beyond some very general statements (universalisms) focused on the > mists of antiquity (such as citing a hadith to the effect that there > were 128,000 prophets or that the Qur'an says that God has sent a > Warner unto every nation), there are explicit pronouncements *against* > adding any names of possible Manifestations of God not attested to in > the Qur'an or Bible (besides the Baha'i Writings themselves). These > statements are quite familiar to this audience. Dr. Maneck also states: > > "While according to Buck one might think this would preclude Baha'i > 'officials' from adding to this list as well in practice at least one > House member and a Counsellor have done precisely that in speeches > given on various occasions." > > Precisely! But they were not speaking in an *official* capacity. For > instance, in 1994, Dr. David S. Ruhe, in his Hasan Balyuzi Memorial > Lecture, delivered in a Harvard Law School building, called Deganawidah > a "great Prophet"--or something to that effect. (His lecture was later > published in the Journal of Baha'i Studies.) However, Dr. Ruhe was > speaking as an ex-House member and certainly not on behalf of the > House. Therefore, rather than speaking officially, Dr. Ruhe was > expressing a purely personal conviction--and this example supports my > thesis of a body of "popular" Baha'i belief that does stand in tension > with officiial pronouncements. > > After his Balyuzi lecture, on behalf of the Association for Baha'i > Studies, Dr. Ruhe personally presented me the "Award for Excellence in > Baha'i Studies" (university category) for my unpublished paper, "Native > Messengers of God in Canada? A Test Case for Baha'i Universalism," > republished in abridged form in _Reason and Revelation_. Yet the paper > was too controversial for Baha'i publication in Canada. The strongest > opponent against its publication was Counselor Jacqueline Left Hand > Bull, now a member of the US-NSA. having spoken with her on two > occasions about this, it is my understanding that she does not believe > that the Baha'i Writings, whether in principle or in fact, support the > thesis that Manifestations of God were sent to indigenous peoples. > > Notwithstanding, Ms. Delahunt and the late Patricia Locke presented a > session on Native American wisdom teachers at the 1993 Centenary of the > World's Parliament of Religions (or so I've heard), and Ms. Delahunt > herself (on television and later in print) has testified to her > personal belief that Baha'u'llah is the return of White Buffalo Calf > Woman. Again--and I cannot stress this point enough--Ms. Delahunt was > *not* speaking on behalf of the Counselors, the NSA or the House. Her > views reflected her own personal feelings on the matter, as part of a > broader spectrum of "popular" Baha'i belief. Now Dr. Maneck further > states: > > "He states somewhat misleadingly that there are 'explicit Baha'i > strictures against adding actual names of Manifestations of God who are > not attributed to in the Abrahamic tradition, most notably in the > Qur'an" and argues that because "the Qur'an is seen as universal > scripture" in thereby acts as "prophetological constraint" on > Manifestations not mentioned there." > > Well, this material comes straight out of statements from the Guardian > and the House as rationale *against* adding names of Manifestations not > attested to in the Baha'i Writings, the Qur'an, or the Bible. Yes, > there is somewhat of a contraction in that the names of the Buddha, > Krishna and Zoroaster were added, as I have already pointed out (in > some detail) in a previous article, "A Unique Eschatological Interface: > Baha'u'llah and Cross-Cultural Messianism," _In Iran_, ed. Peter Smith > (Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1986), 157-79, online at > <bahai-library.org/articles/eschatological.html>. But this > contradiction arises for historical reasons that I won't go into now, > just as the two different understandings of the term "Sabians" that > exist in the Baha'i Writings (i.e., followers of John the Baptist, and > remnants of a pre-Abrahamic religion). On this problem and the reasons > for it, see my article, "The Identity of the Sabi'un: An Historical > Quest." _The Muslim World_ 74.3-4 (July-Oct. 1984): 172-86. > > Since I have to go teach a class in a few minutes, I'll make this > short. The NSAs of the United States and Canada have approved > statements that appear to accept the idea of Manifestations of God sent > to First Nations (a Canadian term!), but only for use in teaching > pamphlets using locally on Indian reservations. There is, to my > knowledge, no official Baha'i statement--especially from the House and > the Guardian--both of whom were generally more explicit on such > matters--that has been made in support of such a statement. A couple of > memoranda from the Research Department have, however, come close. > > Even Native Canadian and American Indian Baha'is are divided on this > issue. So I have not created a "straw man" on this issue, and if Dr. > Maneck was ever in doubt about this problem, she could have > investigated the matter a little further before dismissing it as a > non-issue. Simply referring to a couple of statements made by a former > House member and a former Counselor, while evidence of a popular Baha'i > belief, do not rise to the level of official statements. > > In conclusion (and there are other points I could address, such as my > discussion of "Semiticentrism," etc.), Native Canadian and American > Indian Baha'is would be quite astonished to know that, "It strikes me > that Chris Buck is focusing on a non-existent problem," as Dr. Maneck > asserts. But to assert is not to prove, and my reviewer still hasn't > produced an official Baha'i statement to confound or explode my thesis, > which still stands. > > Christopher Buck > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Invenire ducere est. "To discover is to lead." > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dr. Christopher Buck > Dept. of Religious Studies / > Department of Writing, Rhetoric and American Cultures > Michigan State University > 268 Bessey Hall / East Lansing, MI 48824-1033 > Tel: (517) 432-2557 / Fax: (517) 353-5250 > Home Page: <http://www.msu.edu/~buckc> > > > __________________________________________________________________ > In "Baha'i Universalism and Native Prophets" Dr. Christopher Buck > presents the case for accepting Native American figures such as > Deganawida into pantheon of Baha'i prophetology. Dr. Buck suggests a > tension exists between popular Baha'i 'folk' beliefs which are inclined > to accept Native American spirituality and official Baha'i doctrine > which fails to explicitly name any specific Native American figures as > Manifestations. He states somewhat misleadingly that there are > 'explicit Baha'i strictures against adding actual names of > Manifestations of God who are not attributed to in the Abrahamic > tradition, most notably in the Qur'an" and argues that because "the > Qur'an is seen as universal scripture" in thereby acts as > "prophetological constraint" on Manifestations not mentioned there. Yet > later in the essay Buck acknowledges that Zoroaster, Krishna, and > Buddha are also officially recognized as Manifestations by Baha'is, > none of which are explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an. Clearly, the > constraints in Baha'i prophetology reflect the limitations of the > kinds of questions which presented themselves at the time of > Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha, not the Qur'an. > > While Shoghi Effendi acknowledges that there are Manifestations whose > names are 'lost in the mist of time' Buck feels that this does not > cover the oral traditions which in some cases do provide names for key > Native American spiritual leaders. Yet, the Guardian insists that such > names cannot be added to any official names of Prophets given the fact > they are not mentioned in either the Bible, the Qur'an or Baha'i > scriptures. While according to Buck one might think this would preclude > Baha'i 'officials' from adding to this list as well in practice at > least one House member and a Counsellor have done precisely that in > speeches given on various occasions. > > Buck proceeds to examine the legend of Degananwida supposedly in order > to examine 'why it presents itself to not a few Baha'is as evidence of > an authentic native messenger of God." Yet rather than examine what > this particular legend means to the Baha'is who utilize it, Dr. Buck > instead seems more concerned to establish Degananwida's historicity and > the significance of his life in general, suggesting that he is more > concerned with arguing the case for accepting Degananwida as a > Manifestation of God, than he is in explaining the utilization of this > legend in popular Baha'i culture. This is made clear in the following > sections where Buck argues that the traditional nine religions which > Baha'is often present as the legitimate world religions are not > sufficiently inclusive because of their exclusive focus on religions of > the Middle East and South Asia. While the Guardian's authoritative > statements may well put constraints on those who can be added to the > canonical list of prophets Buck argues that since the Guardian was > willing leave certain questions of history to the historians, this > might allow for some refinement of doctrine. However, the specific > instances where he cites the Guardian as doing this related solely to > the question of dates. Like Dr. Sholeh Quinn, Shoghi Effendi appears to > have seen history as concerned with questions related to the when, > what, where and who of the past rather than determining doctrine or who > is a Manifestation. > > In terms of Baha'i scholarship the most significant contribution of > this article is bringing to the forefront a Tablet written by > 'Abdu'l-Baha which explicitly addresses the issue of revelation in > regards to the Native Americans. This Tablet, addressed to one Amir > Khan of Teheran, > acknowledges that at one time there was communication between Asia and > America via the Bering Straits, the implication apparently being that > they might have received revelation through this means. Should such > people not subsequently be informed of later revelations they would be > excused from recognizing them. But in ancient times they had > undoubtedly received revelations which have now been forgotten. > > Buck concludes his essay by arguing that while it may not be possible > to add specific names to the list of officially acknowledged prophets > still Baha'i authorities might consider affirming the principle that > Messengers of God have appeared in the Americas. It strikes me that > Chris Buck is focusing on a non-existent problem. The Teachings already > do express this principle. Unless one takes Shoghi Effendi's reference > to other prophets 'being lost in the mist of time' or 'forgotten' as > 'Abdu'l Baha put it, in the most literal fashion there is no reason not > to assume that some of spiritual figures of Native American oral > tradition might not have been Manifestations as Baha'is understand > them. This no doubt accounts for the fact that even those highest in > the Baha'i Administration have not hesitated to name them in unofficial > contexts. But it seems in asking for an 'affirmation' from 'Baha'i > authorities' on a doctrinal matter, Chris Buck is expecting the > Universal House of Justice to cross the line into the kind of > authoritative intepretation reserved for the Guardian. Even were such a > thing possible it is difficult to see what this would change. What > Chris Buck sees as a tension between popular Baha'i culture and > official doctrine is in fact merely a distinction between what we can > attest as a possibility or even probability in principle and what we > know by virtue of explicit revelation. And ultimately, as Dr. Quinn > previously pointed out it is revelation, not history which determines > who can or cannot be considered a Manifestation. But revelation itself > can sometimes be constrained by the circumstances of history and the > absence of any mention of the names of Manifestations who might have > appeared in other parts of the world is an example of this. > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 10:11 AM, Susan Maneck wrote: > > > Dear Bill, > > > > I just realized that apparently this part of the review never actually > > appeared on Bridges. I figured I forward it on to Sholeh and Chris as > > well > > so as not to taking their name in vain. ;-} > > > > warmest, Susan > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Susan Maneck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Baha'i Studies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 3:17 AM > > Subject: Quinn and Buck's articles > > > > > >> Dear friends, > >> > >> Continuing on with my review of the book Reason and Revelation, this > >> time > > I > >> am treating two article's together, Sholeh Quinn's article "The End of > >> History?" and Chistopher Buck's article regarding Native American > >> Manifestations. I think it will be clear why I'm placing those > >> together > >> after you read the review. > >> > >> warmest, Susan > >> > >> > >> > >> Dr. Sholeh Quinn's article "The End of History?" provides an > >> accessible > >> overview of academic methodology as it applies to the study of > >> history, > >> explaining both the contributions it can make to our understanding of > >> the > >> Baha'i Faith, and its limitations in terms of the kinds of questions > >> it > > can > >> hope to answer. She explains that history typically involves the > >> study and > >> interrogation of texts for the purpose of unraveling what they can > >> tell us > >> about the past. Historical analysis generally involves determining the > > who, > >> when, where, reliability and purpose of a text as well as determining > >> to > >> whom it was written. In this way it determines the historical context > >> of > > the > >> text. Because of this emphasis Baha'i historians find it necessary to > >> read > >> texts in the original language whenever possible and avoid the use of > >> compilations which decontextualize the text. At the same time there > >> are > >> certain questions of central importance to Baha'is which cannot be > >> determined by historical analysis. These would include determining > >> issues > >> like whether Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation of God. For this reason > >> Baha'i > >> professional historians are sometimes accused of writing in academic > >> contexts like non-Baha'is. It is not due to the fact that they do not > >> believe but rather because the tools with which they work as > >> professional > >> historians do not give them access to that kind of information. The > >> most > >> they can hope to do would be to determine how Baha'u'llah regarded > >> His own > >> station. Quinn does us a great service by explaining in very simple > >> terms > >> what history can and cannot do. > >> > >> Dr. Quinn does not stop with an analysis of what the questions which > >> historians can provide us about the past, she also suggests that > >> Baha'i > >> historians have much to contribute when it comes to correlating "the > > beliefs > >> of the Faith with the current thoughts and problems in the world." > >> However > >> doing so is bound to lead them into controversy, for instance if they > > raise > >> questions regarding the service of women on the Universal House of > > Justice, > >> the relationship between science and religion, and the relationship > > between > >> religion and state. What the paper fails to do is explain some of the > >> dangers to the study of history itself that can present themselves > >> when > >> trying to make this correlation. Here I refer not to the danger of > >> compromising essential Baha'i Teachings (though that is certainly > >> there) > > but > >> there is also a danger of compromising the historical method itself in > >> attempting such correlations. For instance, if ones purpose in > >> studying > > the > >> historical background of women's exclusion from the Universal House of > >> Justice is to make the Baha'i Faith more in keeping with current > >> feminist > >> ideals, then ones historical analysis may well be tainted by that > > objective. > >> The same tensions can arise in studying the relationship between > >> religion > >> and state in the Baha'i Writings. Historical method, as Quinn ably > >> points > >> out earlier in her article involves studying texts within the context > >> in > >> which they were written. To instead focus on their correlation with > > current > >> ideologies to raise as ahistorical a question as whether or not > > Baha'u'llah > >> is a Manifestation of God. In short, the study of history must confine > >> itself to describing the past, not prescribing the future. While > >> Baha'i > >> scholarship in general may well contribute to making correlations to > >> the > >> modern world, there are great limitations as to the extent to which > >> we as > >> historians can contribute to that process. > >> > >> Given the major thesis of Dr. Quinn's article that the professional > >> historian is limited in the kinds of questions it can address, most > >> especially the question of who is or who is not a Manifestation, the > > article > >> which follows is somewhat ironic. In "Baha'i Universalism and Native > >> Prophets" Dr. Christopher Buck presents the case for accepting Native > >> American figures such as Deganawida into pantheon of Baha'i > >> prophetology. > >> Dr. Buck suggests a tension exists between popular Baha'i 'folk' > >> beliefs > >> which are inclined to accept Native American spirituality and official > > Baha' > >> i doctrine which fails to explicitly name any specific Native American > >> figures as Manifestations. He states somewhat misleadingly that there > >> are > >> 'explicit Baha'i strictures against adding actual names of > >> Manifestations > > of > >> God who are not attributed to in the Abrahamic tradition, most > >> notably in > >> the Qur'an" and argues that because "the Qur'an is seen as universal > >> scripture" in thereby acts as "prophetological constraint" on > > Manifestations > >> not mentioned there. Yet later in the essay Buck acknowledges that > >> Zoroaster, Krishna, and Buddha are also officially recognized as > >> Manifestations by Baha'is, none of which are explicitly mentioned in > >> the > > Qur > >> 'an. Clearly, the constraints in Baha'i prophetology reflect the > >> limitations of the kinds of questions which presented themselves at > >> the > > time > >> of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha, not the Qur'an. > >> > >> While Shoghi Effendi acknowledges that there are Manifestations whose > > names > >> are 'lost in the mist of time' Buck feels that this does not cover the > > oral > >> traditions which in some cases do provide names for key Native > >> American > >> spiritual leaders. Yet, the Guardian insists that such names cannot be > > added > >> to any official names of Prophets given the fact they are not > >> mentioned in > >> either the Bible, the Qur'an or Baha'i scriptures. While according to > >> Buck > >> one might think this would preclude Baha'i 'officials' from adding to > >> this > >> list as well in practice at least one House member and a Counsellor > >> have > >> done precisely that in speeches given on various occasions. > >> > >> Buck proceeds to examine the legend of Degananwida supposedly in > >> order to > >> examine 'why it presents itself to not a few Baha'is as evidence of an > >> authentic native messenger of God." Yet rather than examine what this > >> particular legend means to the Baha'is who utilize it, Dr. Buck > >> instead > >> seems more concerned to establish Degananwida's historicity and the > >> significance of his life in general, suggesting that he is more > >> concerned > >> with arguing the case for accepting Degananwida as a Manifestation of > >> God, > >> than he is in explaining the utilization of this legend in popular > >> Baha'i > >> culture. This is made clear in the following sections where Buck > >> argues > > that > >> the traditional nine religions which Baha'is often present as the > > legitimate > >> world religions are not sufficiently inclusive because of their > >> exclusive > >> focus on religions of the Middle East and South Asia. While the > >> Guardian's > >> authoritative statements may well put constraints on those who can be > > added > >> to the canonical list of prophets Buck argues that since the Guardian > >> was > >> willing leave certain questions of history to the historians, this > >> might > >> allow for some refinement of doctrine. However, the specific instances > > where > >> he cites the Guardian as doing this related solely to the question of > > dates. > >> Like Dr. Sholeh Quinn, Shoghi Effendi appears to have seen history as > >> concerned with questions related to the when, what, where and who of > >> the > >> past rather than determining doctrine or who is a Manifestation. > >> > >> In terms of Baha'i scholarship the most significant contribution of > >> this > >> article is bringing to the forefront a Tablet written by 'Abdu'l-Baha > > which > >> explicitly addresses the issue of revelation in regards to the Native > >> Americans. This Tablet, addressed to one Amir Khan of Teheran, > > acknowledges > >> that at one time there was communication between Asia and America via > >> the > >> Bering Straits, the implication apparently being that they might have > >> received revelation through this means. Should such people not > > subsequently > >> be informed of later revelations they would be excused from > >> recognizing > >> them. But in ancient times they had undoubtedly received revelations > >> which > >> have now been forgotten. > >> > >> Buck concludes his essay by arguing that while it may not be possible > >> to > > add > >> specific names to the list of officially acknowledged prophets still > > Baha'i > >> authorities might consider affirming the principle that Messengers of > >> God > >> have appeared in the Americas. It strikes me that Chris Buck is > >> focusing > > on > >> a non-existent problem. The Teachings already do express this > >> principle. > >> Unless one takes Shoghi Effendi's reference to other prophets 'being > >> lost > > in > >> the mist of time' or 'forgotten' as 'Abdu'l-Baha put it, in the most > > literal > >> fashion there is no reason not to assume that some of spiritual > >> figures of > >> Native American oral tradition might not have been Manifestations as > > Baha'is > >> understand them. This no doubt accounts for the fact that even those > > highest > >> in the Baha'i Administration have not hesitated to name them in > >> unofficial > >> contexts. But it seems in asking for an 'affirmation' from 'Baha'i > >> authorities' on a doctrinal matter, Chris Buck is expecting the > >> Universal > >> House of Justice to cross the line into the kind of authoritative > >> intepretation reserved for the Guardian. Even were such a thing > >> possible > > it > >> is difficult to see what this would change. What Chris Buck sees as a > >> tension between popular Baha'i culture and official doctrine is in > >> fact > >> merely a distinction between what we can attest as a possibility or > >> even > >> probability in principle and what we know by virtue of explicit > > revelation. > >> And ultimately, as Dr. Quinn previously pointed out it is revelation, > >> not > >> history which determines who can or cannot be considered a > >> Manifestation. > >> But revelation itself can sometimes be constrained by the > >> circumstances of > >> history and the absence of any mention of the names of Manifestations > >> who > >> might have appeared in other parts of the world is an example of this. > >> > >> > >> > ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
