Customer Reviews

Baha'i: A Christian Response to Baha'ism

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

For those who pointed out that the Bahai reviewers did not site specific details, go to http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/pterry.htm

It should be noted that Dr Beckwith has repeatedly quoted or paraphrased individual Bahai's with the intention of claiming this is what all Bahai's believe.

If you are looking for arguments to use against Bahai's, this is not a good book, since most Bahai's would question some of the assumptions made about Bahai beliefs, including the assumption made right on the title. Bahai's never use the word "Bahai'ism" Why should you? It would just make you look ignorant.

I'm sure you could investigate the Bahai beliefs on your own and come up with your own conclusions. Your arguments would have more weight, because they would be your arguments, not parroted half-truths.

If you are looking for information about what Bahai's believe, this is also not a good book, because the views presented by Dr Beckwith are not always accurate. If you want non-biased information, there are many sources written by non-Bahai's, and those sources are frequently much more accurate.

Read the websites opinion on the so-called "conspiracy" to edit out a prophesy... I think you'll se that this just illustrates my point.

This small book is a presentation of the Baha'i faith (or some aspects of it) from the viewpoint of an evangelical writer - one of those who fortifies his faith and thinks he shows his love for Jesus by attacking the beliefs of others. Eevn the attacks are unoriginal. There is nothing here that hasn't been written elsewhere. More to the point, there is nothing here that hasn't been refuted elsewhere.

I acknowledge that Beckwith's fundamentalist critique of Bahai teachings is intended as a piece of fundamentalist Christian apologetics, which intends to advance the propositional claims of his version of Christianity. Still, let's have a look at some of his points.

Beckwith's main argument seems to be that Baha'i teachings are syncretist,and lack logical coherence. However, I would argue that many Orthodox Jewish logicians might respond that the same is true about Christianity, and suggest that the particular interpretative community and hermeneutic strategies that are deployed are inconsistent with their interpretation of Jewish religious tradition. In several places, Beckwith seems to plead a priori inferences as substantive propositions about human comprehension of the trinity. As a Unitarian, I would respond that Baha'i may well practice value pluralism and syncretism, so how is an anti-syncretist claim illegitimate?

Beckwith exposes the limitations of his position when he makes a third a priori claim about the sole legitimacy of his specific fundamentalist Christian interpretative community and its own hermeneutics of biblical interpretation, against Bahai interpretations, yet he has previously admitted that some elements of the trinity may be beyond rational comprehension.

Moreover, Beckwith runs into some trouble himself when he takes Baha'i selective literalism to task. I might say the same about conservatively correct fundamentalist proof texts that refer to homosexuality, and an anti-abortion stance is not defensible from any interpretation of biblical content. Fundamentalists are as guilty of selective biblical intepretation to serve their own ideological ends as Beckwith accuses Baha'i.

I suspect Beckwith's real beef is a question of open versus closed hermeneutics. Baha'i belief seems to be syncretist, and Beckwith argues that his particular closed fundamentalist hermeneutic interpretative community is better than Baha'i equivalents, while he resorts to analogy and ropes in the Reverend Moon as a corollary for his purposes. That's all very well, but both fundamentalism and the Unification Church are closed and authoritarian interpretative communities -which may explain their convergent political conservatism and collaboration. In a subsequent version of this book, Beckwith also made the arrogant assertion that the Bible predicted the divinity of Christ, and that first- century Jews expected a triumphalist Messiah. I find this utterly obnoxious as well as historically inaccurate, and it shows the limits of fundamentalist Christian apologetics as an academic discipline. He then refers to some divergent Baha'i schools- I find this amusing, considering the extreme fissaparous nature of fundamentalist Protestantism.

I deplore the ethics of this project. Beckwith compares Baha'i to Jews in some places. It is precisely because Baha'i refused to abandon their veneration for Baha'u'llah that they suffered religious persecution in Iran during the eighties. I am not a Baha'i, but I gladly defend these peaceful and humanitarian people against proponents of an exclusivist worldview. I applaud their resistance to Beckwith, and urge them to stand fast in their faith, for it is certainly worthy of respect.

In response to a previous comment, which included the phrase "defended in a public setting before three faculty readers who asked critical questions," Beckwith's work has absolutely NOT stood up to public scrutiny. A thesis defense at a school whose very purpose is to promote similar beliefs is hardly a critical audience. The fact that it passed is clear testimony that the faculty reviewers knew little about the Baha'i Faith's beliefs and history. Even if they had disagreed with the Faith, one whould have thought that the numerous factual errors might have been seen as reason to ask the student to put in a bit more effort. But supposing that the work had indeed been subjected to a decent peer review, I submit for your consideration that the peers themselves are not infallible. What was the reaction of the religious scholars 2000 years ago upon hearing Jesus' teachings? Did they recognize the truth? Far from it. Why, then, trust modern scholars to filter out disinformation from our midst?

To disagree with a faith is one thing. To malign it with lies (whether intentional or not) is quite another. If the Baha'i Faith is indeed in error, then the facts should have provided Mr. Beckwith with ample evidence. His chose instead to invent his own.

To what errors do I refer? I am limited to 1000 words, so I cannot list them here. A website has been suggested above for those who are intereted, but a far more informative investigation would be to actually read the Baha'i scriptures and then contast these works with Mr. Beckwith's references.

If you consider with a fair mind what Mr. Beckwith has written, no matter what your conclusion, you will most likely emerge a wiser person.

I find it quite suprising that a book of such poor calibur even got published! I am a Baha'i, and I am perfectly open to people criticizing the Baha'i faith based on fact. However, this book has grotesque mis-quotes and demonstrates that the author was simply trying to attack the Baha'i faith based on malice rather than fact. This is a disappointment to Baha'is, and (I am sure) an emberassment to those who hate them.

It is unfortunate that Beckwith, despite access to accurate information, nonetheless chose to attack the Baha'i Faith in this book using poor scholarship. It's not necessary to bend the truth to argue against the beliefs of a religion, and Beckwith would have more credibility if he had more fully researched his subject, and not relied on ill-informed sources.

When I first read this book, I bought it because I wanted to do scholarly research in the Baha'i Faith as an outsider. While I think Professor Beckwith's arguements are a little weak, the book did not give an adequate introduction to Baha'ism.

On a second glance, though, Beckwith doesn't ever advertise to do this. This book is written to an audience of (supposedly) evangelical Christians to critique--not give an objective survey. I suppose, then, that this book does what is set out to do, although the overall argument is that we know our ethical-metaphysical-religious system is right, so everything that is something else must be wrong. No surprise there: we are talking about two distinct, evolving, living traditions here: of course they are going to be different!

Still, the larger question remains whether such a critique is relevant or even ethical. Books like this aren't written with authors afraid of hostility, and do just the opposite of what Christ commands us to do, which is spread the gospel.

Francis Beckwith is a Christian writer who has taken upon
himself the task of discrediting the Baha'i Faith. One
response by a Baha'i can be found at:

http://www.bcca.org/~glittle/docs/paullamp.html

This book is a blatant attack on the Baha'i Faith by someone with an axe to grind. As mentioned by other reviewers, the booklet is an embarrasment to Christians.

Perhaps the one use the booklet has is for training Baha'is on the kind of reaction they might get from more fanatical Christians. There are a number of websites that show evidence to dispute the author's claims. One was shown in a previous comment here.

There are much better books that look at the Baha'i Faith from a Christian perspective. This is a simple polemic against the Baha'i Faith. Unfortunately, it takes Baha'i scripture badly out of context and the analysis is illogical at times. Do not be fooled by the fact that the book is written by an professor. This is a badly informed essay in which the author does not even attempt an objective analysis.