Home Newsletters   Resources    Discussion     About Us   

Bahá'í - Christian Dialogue Interest Group

Dear Friends,

…

Recently there've been cryptic references, in e-mail discussion groups, to the "Gary Matthews method" for teaching Christians. Much as I appreciate the writers' intent, such terminology makes me flinch. Even if I had such a method -- and I don't -- I believe it's unwise to identify a teaching strategy with any specific individual (other than perhaps our Central Figures). I've watched this before; it's happened with certain "mass teaching" techniques, deepening practices and other methodologies. The result is predictable: A wonderful idea, evolving from the collective wisdom and experience of the Baha'i community, becomes frozen into someone's personal ideology. At that point the idea ceases to develop, adapt and incorporate fresh insights; efforts are made to apply it in situations where it doesn't belong; and people start taking sides about it. A once-useful tool becomes a point of disunity, so that it does more harm than good. Be that as it may, I repeat that there's _no such thing_ as a "Matthews method" of teaching Christians (or anyone else). I do have some views on this subject, views I've aired many times on Baha'i-Teachers and in other public forums. Lest someone think there's anything original, proprietary or even systematic about my ideas, here they are:

First, the only rule is that "there are no rules"! Christians are easily the most diverse population on earth, and anything we say that's right for one Christian is likely to be wrong for another. Memorizing a script, or following mechanically a "method", can never take the place of getting to know the individual we seek to teach. But if "methods", "rules", "systems" and the like are too rigid, there is a spiritual _attitude_ that makes effective Christian teaching possible. This attitude can be expressed in what I call "three guidelines and a theological principle".

The three guidelines are:

(a) listen and learn; (b) affirm and explain; and (c) truly love Christ and the Bible.

The theological principle is:

There is only one Christ.

In case they aren't self-evident, let's consider these points one at a time:

(a) Listen and Learn: Why is this step important? Because any given Christian probably knows things about Christianity that we don't. (Some know a _lot_ that we don't.) This includes those we may think of as "fundamentalists" or "literalists" -- their ranks include some very spiritual, very insightful and intelligent people. We needn't hesitate to listen, to ask questions, to draw them out and cultivate a sympathetic understanding of their views. Often we'll discover fascinating and useful information in this way. Another important benefit is that we'll better understand the thoughts and feelings of the person we seek to teach, so that we can better adapt our own presentation.

(b) Affirm and Explain: There's a strong temptation to respond to Christian arguments by saying, "That's wrong", or "We don't believe that". In most cases, this approach is needlessly confrontational. There is a "Baha'i way" of understanding -- and affirming -- virtually every traditional Christian belief: the inspiration of the Bible, the Sonship and Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, Satan, you name it. Whenever Christians advance such doctrines (or ask us for our views on them), we have two choices: One, we can pick a fight. Two, we can quote Baha'i scriptures which endorse the truth of the Bible teaching in question, and which demonstrate its correct interpretation. Which response will more likely gain a receptive hearing: "That's wrong; we don't believe that." Or: "You've expressed a most important Bible truth, one that we as Baha'is embrace completely. May I share with you how we understand and interpret this principle?" In the latter case, we emphasize our common commitment to Christ and the Bible: We are fellow-believers discussing a secondary question of meaning. Otherwise, we position ourselves as adversaries with nothing in common to talk about.

(c) Truly love Christ and the Bible. This is The Big One -- the tough one, because we can't fake it. We can cultivate this love; we can acquire it; but we can't fake it. If we don't express such an attitude, we won't succeed. But if we try to express it without really meaning it, our Christian contacts will see through us like glass. For this, they have x-ray vision, and we needn't try to kid anybody. The good news is that once we do acquire this love, and the reverence that goes along with it, we become entitled to a certain number of mistakes in applying the other guidelines. (I almost said "rules"...) Not, however, an unlimited number of mistakes. Which brings up the above-mentioned theological principle:

There is Only One Christ. I find that this principle always raises a certain number of Baha'i eyebrows. Don't we say there are lots of "Christs"? Don't we insist that Jesus Christ was simply "one among many"? Don't we say Christ was fine for His time, but that was then, and this is now, and so we need Baha'u'llah and His teachings to replace Christ and the Bible? Yes, we Baha'is say plenty of things like this, particularly to our Christian friends. And no matter what other wonderful things we may say, we seem always to bog down at this juncture in arguments about the uniqueness of Christ. By doing so, we miss Baha'u'llah's point regarding the oneness of the Manifestations. What we must see is that Christians who insist on the everlasting uniqueness and supremacy of Christ are correct -- in a very important sense. They didn't invent this principle: It is upheld both in the Bible and in the Baha'i teachings. Referring to Christ, the Bible says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Elsewhere this "Word" (which the Bible says "was made flesh, and dwelt among us") is defined as a "quickening spirit" and as the "express image of the invisible God" (Heb. 1:3, Col. 1:15) -- an image we see reflected "as in a mirror" (II Cor. 3:18). In other words, when the Bible speaks of "Christ", it doesn't always refer to the historical human being known as Jesus of Nazareth: Often it means the preexistent Presence of God that became manifest _in_ Jesus. "...in this sense", says 'Abdu'l-Baha, "'Christ' is an expression of the Divine Reality, the simple Essence and heavenly Entity, which hath no beginning nor ending" (Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 207). In this sense, there is only one Christ -- eternally unique, unchanging, incomparable. In this sense, Christ is literally "the way, the truth and the life" and the "only way" to God. In this sense, "Christ" -- the preexistent Presence of God -- is manifest in Jesus, in Baha'u'llah, in all the Divine Messengers. These are different human individuals, but they all embody one "quickening spirit", and that spirit is the Eternal Christ. Most Christians, I find, intuitively understand this distinction between the Divine Christ (the indwelling Presence of God) and the human, historical Jesus. Many understand it in a very explicit and thoughtful way: It is, after all, standard Christian theology. Instead of trying to undermine or diminish their concept of Christ, we do better to expand their vision: Help them see that Christ -- this Divine Christ -- is even greater and more universal than they may have realized. If we confirm their belief in Christ, and explain it in this manner, we create a shared sense of commitment that is most attractive. And we demonstrate that boundless reverence for Christ in no way contradicts our belief in Baha'u'llah, or in progressive revelation. If we evince this attitude toward Christ (which is common to both the Bible and the Baha'i teachings); if we emphasize that in this sense, there is only one Christ -- it's often amazingly easy to reach agreement in principle regarding His nature and station. Not every Christian will agree with every word we say on this topic, but that's irrelevant. The point is that this familiar, easily understood perspective rarely takes Christians outside their comfort zone. And once we find common cause regarding the identity of Christ, it becomes possible to discuss freely all the other sticky issues that paralyze Baha'i-Christian dialog.

There, that's it. That basically everything I know (or at least think) about teaching Christians. This bridge-building approach certainly isn't mine: Each one of the guidelines is repeatedly emphasized in our Sacred Writings; all of them were perfectly exemplified and demonstrated by 'Abdu'l-Baha. This explanation of Christ was used not only by our Central Figures, but by most of the early great Baha'i pioneers and teachers such as Lua Getsinger. I learned it from Winston Evans, Marzieh Gail and many other outstanding Baha'i teachers. It has been expounded in our day, with brilliant scholarship, by Michael Sours, Dann J. May, Brent Poirier and a host of other Baha'i writers. But I can't shake the funny feeling that none of us, so far, have really figured this thing out -- not completely. Insofar as this model (or strategy or whatever we call it) works, fine. But we need to express it in countless ways, augment it with fresh insights and experiences from many other teachers, adapt it to novel situations. It needs to evolve over time. Please God, we'll soon look back at the description I've outlined above, and laugh at how naive and simplistic it was, considering how much better we then understand the spiritual dynamic. When that day comes, I'm praying that my own current exposition won't be remembered (and thereby fossilized) as the "Matthews Method". Who wants to go down in history as a quaint laughing-stock? Not this kid...

…

Well, I had plenty of other stuff to include in this issue; but it's running long already. Maybe next month!

Warmest love,