Bahá’í World/Volume 7/A Session at the World Congress of Faiths

The Bahá’í World
Volume 7

A SESSION AT THE WORLD CONGRESS OF FAITHS

BY HELEN BISHOP

THIS Congress held daily sessions from July 3 through July 17, 1936, in the great hall of the University, in London, besides four public meetings at Queen’s Hall. It was a representative gathering of religionists, liberal or free thinkers, scientists, and philosophers—and thus a temptation to doctrinal debate or interplay of minds—but its intention was thoroughly practical. “To promote the spirit of fellowship was the one aim of the Congress,” said its able Chairman, Sir Francis Younghusband.

Hence, all papers read were prefaces to the theme of “World Fellowship through Religion”: Buddhists, Brahmans, Jews, Christians, Muslims, followers of Confucius and seekers of a better social order gave their points of view on the problem of unity and world peace. The free discussion by members of the Congress, which followed the formal reading, adduced further argument and was germane to that one central theme. In the social hours came opportunity to cultivate personal contacts with those who had come together to investigate the truth behind the barriers of the religions.

The official opening was also the first public meeting, held at Queen’s Hall on the evening of July 3. Dame Elizabeth Cadbury was in the chair. His Highness the Maharajah Gaekwar of Baroda, the Honourable President of the Congress, gave an address of welcome. A gracious message came from His Majesty King Edward VIII to the Congress. Then Lord Allen of Hurtwood spoke for the millions who could not identify themselves with any creed or church. As President of the International Council of Women, Lady Aberdeen conveyed the hearty good wishes of some forty millions of women belonging to all races, to all nations, to all classes and all faiths. From Japan, the Zen sage, Dr. (Teitaro Suzuki, expressed the Buddhistic hope for world fellowship. A Chinese, Mr. S. I. Hsiung, talented author of Lady Precious Stream, made worthy comments. Afterwards, the Right Honourable Sir Herbert Samuel (now Viscount Samuel of Carmel) gave an eloquent address.

The following papers were read in the daily sessions either by their respective authors or their appointees:

1. The Essential Basis of Religion, by A. Yusuf ‘Alí.

2. Ignorance and World Fellowship, by Dr. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki.

3. An Inspiring Vision, by Prof. G. P. Malalasekera.

4. The Brotherhood of Man and the Religions, by Prof. Nicolas Berdiaeff.

5. Love—The Basis of Fellowship, by Prof. Louis Massignon and M. Saurat.

6. Religion and Religions, by Dr. Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.

7. Science and Religion, by the late Prof. J. S. Haldane—read by his daughter, Mrs. Naomi Mitchison.

8. A Hindu View of Religion, by Prof. S. N. Das Gupta.

9. Islám and World Fellowship, by Sir ‘Abdu’l-Qadir.

10. The City of God, by the Rev. J. S. Whale.

11. Prayer and Spiritual Experience, by Prof. Mahendra Nath Sircar.

12. A New Pilgrim’s Progress, by Dr. Ranjee G. Shahani.

13. Is World Fellowship Possible in View of the Antagonisms of the World? by Dr. W. J. Stein.

14. The Teachings of Confucius and His Followers, by Mr. S. I. Hsiung.

15. The Spirit of Peace and the Spirit of War, by Dr. Judah L. Magnes.

[Page 635] 16. Independent Religious Thought, by M. Jean Schlumberger.

17. Bahá’u’lláh’s Ground Plan of World Fellowship. A paper approved by Shoghi Effendi.

18. The Economic Barriers to Peace, by the Rev. P. T. R. Kirk.

19. A Constructive Proposal, by His Eminence Shaykh Al-Mara{{u|gh}i.

20. The Right of the Spirit, by Prof. J. Emile Marcault.

“The Supreme Spiritual Ideal” was developed in the two public meetings of July 6 and 9. The Right Honorable Lord Snell of Plumstead was in the chair on the sixth; and the speakers were the Rev. Canon F. R. Barry, Rabbi Dr. Israel Mattuck, and Dr. Radhakrishnan. On the ninth, Sir Frederick Whyte was in the chair; and Dr. Suzuki, Madame Halidé Edib, and Mr. Rom Landau were the speakers. At the farewell meeting on the evening of July 17, Prof. Marcault was in the chair; and the speakers were Prof. Mahendra Nath Sircar, M. Denis Saurat, Viscount Samuel, Sir Francis Younghusband, and Mr. Yusuf ‘Alí.

These addresses, together with the papers and the résumé of discussions are available in the volume of proceedings published for The World Congress of Faiths.¹ The event recorded in this Bahá’í World is the presentation of the Bahá’í Faith before the members of the Congress on the morning of July 16.

As the Chairman, Viscount Samuel spoke these telling words:

If one were compelled to choose which of the many religious communities of the world was closest to the aim and purpose of this Congress, I think one would be obliged to say that it was the comparatively little known Bahá’í community. Other faiths and creeds have to consider, at a Congress like this, in what way they can contribute to the idea of world fellowship. But the Bahá’í faith exists almost for the sole purpose of contributing to the fellowship and the unity of mankind.

Other communities may consider how far a particular element of their respective faith may be regarded as similar to those of other communities, but the Bahá’í Faith exists for the purpose of combining in one synthesis all those elements in the various faiths which are held in common. And that is why I suggest that this Bahá’í community is really more in agreement with the main idea which has led to the summoning of the Congress than any particular one of the great religious communities of the world.

Its origin was in Persia where a mystic prophet, who took the name of the Báb, the “Gate,” began a mission among the Persians in the earlier part of the nineteenth century. He collected a considerable number of adherents. His activities were regarded with apprehension by the Government of Persia of that day. Finally, he and his leading disciples were seized by the forces of the Persian Government and were shot in the year 1850. In spite of the persecution, the movement spread in Persia and in many countries of Islám. He was followed as the head of the Community by the one who has been its principal prophet and exponent, Bahá’u’lláh. He was most active and despite persecution and imprisonment made it his life’s mission to spread the creed which he claimed to have received by direct divine revelation. He died in 1892 and was succeeded as the head of the community by his son, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, who was born in 1844. He was living in Haifa, in a simple house, when I went there as High Commissioner in 1920, and I had the privilege of one or two most interesting conversations with him on the principles and methods of the Bahá’í faith. He died in 1921 and his obsequies were attended by a great concourse of people. I had the honor of representing His Majesty the King on that occasion.

Since that time, the Bahá’í faith has secured the support of a very large number of communities throughout the world. At the present time it is estimated that there are about eight hundred Bahá’í communities in various countries. In the United States, near Chicago, a great

————————

¹Faiths and Fellowship, pub. by J. M. Watkins, 21 Cecil Court, London, W. C. 2.

[Page 636] temple, now approaching completion, has been erected by American adherents to the faith, with assistance from elsewhere. Shoghi Effendi, the grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, is now the head of the community. He came to England and was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, but now lives at Haifa, and is the centre of a community which has spread throughout the world.²

The Reverend Canon George Townshend, on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, read the following paper as approved by the Guardian: ³

The Ground Plan of World Fellowship which is now submitted to your consideration was composed out of the writings of Bahá’u’lláh and presented by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London, and later in Paris, about a quarter of a century ago. It proposes in the simplest possible form a practical scheme for mastering the urgent problem of world-fellowship; and its originating idea, though of outstanding magnitude, is such as to place the whole plan throughout, from its beginning, in complete accord with the purpose we have before us to-day—that of promoting the spirit of fellowship through the inspiration of religion.

This Plan, in every feature, plainly implies that nothing less than a concerted effort on a world scale, with the spiritual energies of mankind informing its practical energies, will now suffice to awaken the spirit of fellowship and secure deliverance from danger. No local or regional effort; no partial effort of either religion alone or statecraft alone, will completely solve our problems. The sense of fellowship, to be adequate to this unique emergency, must, on the one hand, be broad—based on the whole of our human nature, spiritual, moral and intellectual, and on the other hand must not be limited by any terrestrial boundaries whatever.

Such a thesis may still be ahead of the public opinion of mankind. But it is not so far ahead of that opinion as it was when it was first proposed in this city in 1911. Today our emergency is rather more serious than then; but it is of the same general character. What, then, and up to the present, has been lacking in men's experiments is the clearness of spiritual vision, the guidance of intuition. Only Faith can point or see the way in such an hour as this. Men question the love of a God who could let loose on them so dire a cataclysm and could choose out this generation for suffering wholly unprecedented. Their doubt cuts them off from the source of light and help. There is no vision; and the people perish. Only Faith sees clearly, in open view, that this darkness is cast by a great light, that this passing defeat of the spirit of Fellowship is the prelude of its final victory. A loving God would not have set this generation problems without bestowing the ability to solve them, would not inflict dire penalties on those whom he regarded as guiltless.

We are daunted by the strange new troubles that close us in on every side; we do not look within and observe that a new power of mastering these is being developed in conscience and in spirit. Intellectual vision never was so keen as in this generation; but spiritual vision, was it ever more weak? We talk, we boast, of the New Age, but we miss its greatest gift. We say the human race is at last reaching maturity, but we do not realise the fullness, the completeness of this growth. We perceive it is intellectual; we do not perceive that it is, in like measure, moral and spiritual. Man’s conscience has become more sensitive, his spirit more responsive to heavenly promptings. As he is to-day endowed with a new degree of intellectual power, so also is he endowed to-day with a new degree of religious power. The evolutionary process, with even hand, bears onward the whole being and nature of man; his heart as well as his brain. New ideals, new hopes, new dreams of further progress, a more general, more insistent desire to build a better world than the one which we inherit, these bear witness to man’s consciousness of growth. In all its faculties the human race is passing from childhood and ignorance towards maturity; towards the tasks that befit full manhood. To-day mankind is like a youth leaving school for the sterner world of business and affairs. It is called on to put into practice the lessons of moral principles and human fellowship in which it has been instructed for so long. For how many

————————

²Ibid., pp. 311-12.

³Ibid.pp. 299-311.

[Page 637] centuries have we, all of us, been under tutelage to those whom we revere as the Founders of our Faiths? Is it strange that a time should come when we should be required to put into concrete deeds the precepts of brotherhood we all acknowledge, and should at last be threatened with condign punishment if we disobey?

Much, indeed, has been done of late to remedy old wrongs, to suppress tyranny, to uplift the oppressed, to relieve the poor, to teach the ignorant. But how much remains undone! We have accomplished enough to convict ourselves of being fitted for a better social order, of being ready to inaugurate a system of widespread justice and fraternity, and of lacking the resolution to put our ideals into effect. There is enough of good in our recent record to incriminate us, but not enough to deliver us. We stand now before the judgment seat of heaven condemned by the evidence of our own acts.

We had no vision. Men turned from the saints, mystics, and seers, and listened to secular philosophers. Blind leaders of the blind, into what perdition have they led us! Our intellectual eminence by some fatality heightened our troubles. Divorced from faith, it aggravated human pride, taught men to forget their moral responsibility and to deny their servitude before the moral law. The inevitable hour of retribution draws near.

Surely this is a love-tragedy vaster in its scale, more terrible in its poignancy than any in the history of our race!

The urge of evolution pressed us forward; we would not go. The spirit of fellowship grew warm in our hearts; we would not feed its flame. The gates of world-brotherhood opened wide; we turned away. God poured His spiritual bounties on spirit and conscience in greater abundance than ever; we in our blindness rejected His gifts and Him.

But this failure is not final nor for long. It is not the failure of Faith, nor yet of Love. It is the open, the confessed failure of human wisdom. Through its purgation men who have doubted will learn to turn for fellowship and peace to the way they have not trodden; the way of religion. But all must tread this way together. Since the whole world as a unit is involved, the ideals which are to guide this movement must be given a definite shape. If there is to be concerted action towards a single goal, some map of the common journey must be made. Vague sentiments of goodwill, however genuine, will not suffice. Some explicit agreement on principles will be required for any coordinated progress.

It was to this task that Bahá’u’lláh long ago addressed himself, and worked out a Ground Plan on which the temple of human fellowship might be reared. It consisted of a set of fundamental principles and represented the minimum of what the occasion required. No foundation less deeply dug than this will hold the structure that is to be built upon it.

The burden of the whole scheme was laid ultimately upon the shoulders of each individual man and woman. Everybody by virtue of his status as a human being had his share in the vast world enterprise. The principle of individual responsibility was thus to be the basis of all progress.

But underneath this basic fact of human duty lay something deeper yet. The living rock on which this foundation was to be laid was something the strength of which humanity hitherto has too little recognized. That rock is the Truth. This spirit of fellowship which we seek to encourage is not by Bahá’u’lláh conceived as some addition to being, which the genius of man should undertake to create. As a flower within the bud, it lies waiting the hour of its appearance. It is a reality which our fragmentariness denies. And what this Assembly desires to do is not to create something new, but to give expression to something which is already in existence though unused. Man’s advancing power is due to his increasing knowledge of truth; and the magnificence of this present age bears witness in the last resort not to the personal greatness of this generation, but rather to the greatness of a continuously unfolding Truth. If this Age is to become the Age of Universal Brotherhood, it must be the Age of Knowledge, knowledge of Truth. The Truth will set us free. The Truth will make us one.

As the first item of his programme, therefore, Bahá’u’lláh claimed that every [Page 638] individual should have the right of seeking for himself the truth. Love of truth, which at the present time is growing apace among mankind, is the sole real corrective of all forms of error and illusion. The great enmities which in the past have divided mankind, and which were due to misunderstanding and ignorance, have, in recent times, lost their vitality, and our estrangements are now due chiefly to the instinct of imitation and to prejudice. These prejudices have come down to us from the past, racial, religious, national. For them all Bahá’u’lláh offers one radical cure, the search for truth. The battle which mankind yet has to fight between prejudice and truth he seems to regard as the Armageddon of the human soul.

Through this search for truth mankind at last would become really and clearly conscious of the essential unity of the human race. For this unity is, and has ever been, a fact. "Ye are the branches of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye with one another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship,” wrote Bahá’u’lláh. From the full knowledge of this unity, and from nothing less, there would be born in this age a spirit of world fellowship adequate to the present emergency. On this consciousness of unity, therefore, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá laid the greatest stress. He gave to it a central place in his programme, other features supporting or amplifying it or giving it application in the practical affairs of mankind.

One of the facts which has obscured from men’s view their essential unity is the difference between the world religions, which has been made the cause of estrangement, of prejudice, and even of ill-will and strife. But, insisted ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, there is nothing in these differences which should produce so sad a result. Indeed, there is an important aspect in which all religions are at heart one, and he included the existence of this unity as a principle in his scheme. He meant, so it seems, that a religion does not consist solely of a doctrine, and an institution, but is also, in a real and vital sense a spiritual atmosphere. It is, as he once described it, "an attitude of soul towards God, reflected in life.” This is the essence of true religion; and to this extent, the whole world over, members of all the religions have an outlook, an experience, an obligation which they share in common with one another in spite of their special and distinctive loyalties, and which group them all together apart from the sceptic.

The more intensely spiritual men are, the more vividly conscious are they of the reality and sweetness of this communion, and one of their privileges is the experience of a deep sympathy, a common lowliness, a common aspiration which they share with those of a different tradition from their own.

Not only in their atmosphere and their influence but even in their profounder teachings the world-religions may show forth this unity. Do not all our faiths affirm and magnify the love of God for His creatures? What truth could be more ancient, more precious than this? What would bind those who espouse it with a closer tie of fellowship?

This age of widening consciousness and deepening love of truth has begun to bring us, on a scale quite unprecedented, some accurate knowledge of the sacred treasures and the sacred history of the human race. Scholars, divines, men of letters, poets have all contributed to this enlightenment. They show us each of the great religions as being like a majestic temple reared in some chosen spot by the hand of a master architect, and surrounded now by a multitude of lesser buildings of various later dates. Each temple blends with its own environment but is in marked contrast with all the other temples. No two are alike, and the annexes connected with each are still more unlike. But if the enquiring traveler pursues his investigations and makes his way within the sacred structures, he discovers in their several interiors and even in the shrines themselves an unmistakable kinship in beauty.

Experts in comparative religion have spoken with emphasis of the points of agreement to be found between the world religions. Professor Cheyne quotes Max Muller as “advising Brahmists to call themselves Christians,” and himself argues that the reconciliation of religions must precede that of races "which at present is so lamentably [Page 639] incomplete.” The evidence of men of learning is supported by that of another cloud of witnesses, whose testimony none can gainsay, and who speak with the voice not of intellectual criticism but of spiritual knowledge. The highest exponents of a religion, those who understand most thoroughly its meaning and interpret its spirit with the most compelling authority, are those men and women of mystical genius whose impassioned devotion and obedience to their divine Master is the outstanding feature of their lives. If each of these religions were strictly exclusive, the negation of all the others, bringing to men its own irreconcilable message, those who followed these religions to the extreme, the mystics and the saints, would assuredly move farther and farther apart, and would come to rest at the last point of divergence. The greater the saint the wider the gulf between him and the saints of alien allegiances. At the same time the less aspiring and spiritually gifted multitudes, immersed in the daily human concerns which all men share alike, would be found to be the least estranged from one another by their differing creeds.

But in fact this is not so. Strangely, very strangely, religious history shows us something quite different, exactly the opposite. The contrast between each world-religion and all its sister-religions is, as a rule, felt most acutely and insisted on most vigorously by the less mystically minded of its votaries. While the mystics of all the religions, instead of moving farther and ever farther apart, seem rather to travel by converging paths and to draw nearer and nearer together.

If one is to accept the account of their experience given by contemporaries or by themselves, these mystics seem all the world over to have gone upon the same spiritual adventure, to be drawn onward by the same experience of an outpoured heavenly love; and they testify one and all that to reach this knowledge of the love of God is to understand at last the mystery and the hidden blessedness of life, and to possess an everlasting treasure for which the sacrifice of all earthly things is but a little price.

This fellowship among all mystics is common knowledge, of which evidence is within the reach of all. In a well-known English work, Miss Underhill writes of the mystics that, “We meet these persons in the east and the west, in the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds. Their one passion appears to be the prosecution of a certain spiritual and intangible quest. . . . This, for them, has constituted the whole meaning of life . . . and it is an indirect testimony to its objective actuality that whatever the place or period in which they have arisen, their aims, doctrines and methods have been substantially the same. Their experience, therefore, forms a body of evidence, curiously self-consistent and often mutually explanatory. . . .” Introduction to Mysticism, Ch. 1.

Every public library in this country will contain books supplying illustrations of this statement. The mystical outlook and perspective both on the things of heaven and the things of earth is in its essence eternally the same. But perhaps no instance of the fundamental unity that underlies all mystical experience is more striking than that parallelism between Plotinus and St. Augustine to which in his Evolution of Theology Professor Edward Caird draws attention. “Some of the finest expressions of this (the mystical) attitude of soul,” he writes, “may be found in the Confessions of St. Augustine. But when St. Augustine expresses his deepest religious feelings we find that he repeats the thoughts and almost the very words of Plotinus.” Professor Caird then shows how closely akin to the thought of Plotinus is “that great passage in which Augustine gives an account of his last conversation with his mother Monica about the life of the redeemed in heaven.” And he concludes, "how deeply neo-Platonism must have sunk into the spirit of St. Augustine, when, in describing the highest moment of his religious experience, he adopts almost verbally the language in which Plotinus tries to depict the mystic ecstasy of the individual soul as it enters into communion with the soul of the world.”

By what diverse paths have mystics, who had nothing in common save wholehearted servitude before the one loving God, by what diverse paths have they all alike [Page 640] attained the blessed Presence? And what man in his pride of opinion will shut out from Paradise those whom God’s own hand has admitted? Thus do scholars and saints join to testify that the great religions have their aspect of unity as well as their aspect of variety, and that without qualifying their special allegiance, worshippers in all religions may find something in the fundamental nature of religion itself which promotes a sweet, precious and abiding sense of true companionship.

The promotion of a boundless spirit of concord and goodwill, Bahá’u’lláh maintained to be agreeable to the genius of every world-religion. Whatever misunderstanding may have arisen in bygone centuries, no religion as originally taught was meant to encourage animosity. Quite the contrary. Religion is meant to heal discord. So important, in an age of disintegration, did this feature of religion seem that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá proposed to include in his Plan the precept that, "the purpose of religion is to promote harmony and affection.”

One will not doubt this loving purpose may be discovered, or rediscovered, in every one of our world-faiths, and assuredly in Christianity. If we look away from Christendom to Christ and to the pure teaching of Christ, we find it evident throughout the Gospels. Christ said that one’s whole duty was to love God and one’s neighbor, and He described neighbor as meaning anyone you could help regardless of creed or kin. He made fellowship in love the evidence of Christian membership: "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples if ye have love one to another.”

In this Age we congratulate ourselves that for centuries past religious enmity has been continually growing more weak. Yet our ideal remains negative. To manifest no ill-will towards those who differ in opinion from us is not enough. Christ enjoined a more positive attitude of soul, one of active goodwill despite all differences. When God thus commands a spirit of affection towards all, He gives the power to obey His command. Religion, in other words, is creative. Through its force the will of an earnest man is enabled to achieve an inward change that otherwise would be beyond his strength. If this were not so, what useful place would religion fill in this cosmos of ours?

If now the creative power of religion to effect this purpose were called upon and put to vigorous use, how many vital problems which have proved insoluble on the intellectual plane, such as the reunion of Christendom or the combating of secularism, might prove much more tractable when carried to the spiritual plane?

Another effort at harmonization was called for when Bahá’u’lláh included in this scheme an active partnership between religion and science.

Tolerance between the two is too little. In their nature they are complementary, as two wings with which the soul soars towards knowledge of the truth. Science divorced from religion gives a wholly distorted view of reality. Religion divorced from science may become a mere superstition. Man is to use both as his servants and thus to bring the material aspect of life and the spiritual aspect at last into evident and complete accord.

To these principles Bahá’u’lláh added, as necessary for practical results, certain provisions of a more material nature. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá mentioned laws to prevent extremes of indigence and opulence, universal education, a common language, a central World-Tribunal.

To the use by all nations of a secondary or world language in addition to their mother tongue, great importance was attached. Without this device fellowship would never be assured. The religious history of mankind from the days of Babel to the present bears out this emphasis. When we remember, for example, the influence of the general use of the Greek language throughout the Roman Empire at the beginning of our Era; when we consider how in Islám the adoption of Arabic as a common language united peoples hitherto estranged, facilitated the interchange of thought and aided the rapid extension of a single culture over vast regions, or when again we observe how the cause of ecclesiastic unity was promoted by the use, and weakened by the disuse, of the Latin language as a medium among the peoples of western Europe centuries ago; we are driven [Page 641] to conclude that in this age of radio and aviation a world-language would unify the peoples of mankind to a degree unprecedented in the past and difficult for us to calculate in anticipation.

The federal tribunal or Board of Arbitration which in a few words ‘Abdu’l-Bahá proposed, differed in three notable points from the League which afterwards was set up. The provision of an adequate police force was an essential prerequisite: the draft of any proposed constitution was to be referred not only to the governments but also to the peoples of the world; and, when finally ratified and adopted, it was to enjoy the full support of religion, of church as well as of state, and its strict maintenance against any violation by any nation was to be held by all mankind as a sacred obligation.

In these and all other reforms man’s greatest stay would be the Holy Spirit, without whose aid no peace or fellowship or unification would ever be secured.

This scheme of world fellowship, first promulgated some forty years before, was presented twenty-five years ago in London by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. "This,” he said, “is a short summary of the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. To establish this, Bahá’u’lláh underwent great difficulties and hardships. He was in constant confinement and he suffered great persecution. But . . . from the darkness of his prison he sent out a great light into the world.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá In London, p. 18.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá claimed that these principles were consistent with the spirit of all the world-religions, and were measured with exact and unique fitness to mankind’s heightened capacity and its tremendous responsibility at this time. He felt no doubt of this being at no very distant date adopted: fellowship along these lines was the birthright of our New Age. But though they have percolated far through the world and have cheered the hearts of many, yet the larger collaboration between races and religions here so definitely outlined has in fact been postponed in favor of narrower views and more materialistic reforms. Our civilization is in desperate plight and has sunk into a moral and spiritual abyss.

Men realise the urgent need of a reformation greater in range and intensity than mankind has ever yet achieved; but know not how to meet that need.

In such an emergency does not this bold original scheme of fellowship merit serious consideration and even the test of experiment? Does it deserve to be merely ignored by the rulers and teachers of the world?

In advocating peace to a western audience ‘Abdu’l-Bahá once said: “You have had war for thousands of years; why not try peace for a change? If you do not like it you can always go back to war.” One might hazard a similar suggestion about this fellowship plan. We have tried every other device, why not now try this?

For all its brevity, this summary may suffice to suggest the character of the Ground Plan of World Fellowship constructed by Bahá’u’lláh and presented here in London by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and may indicate how close it is in spirit and in purpose to the ideal which is now before this Assembly.

If it be true that reforms as great and as numerous as these are demanded by the Genius of our Age, one will perceive why the alternatives tried by mundane wisdom during this generation have resulted in consistent disappointment. What has been lacking in all is religious insight, an appreciation of the fact that evolution has brought to men an advance in their moral and spiritual powers and a proportionate heightening of their opportunities and responsibilities. “That one is a man indeed who to-day dedicateth himself to the service of the entire human race. . . . It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.” Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 250.

Bahá’u’lláh clearly affirms that without a keener spirituality, a loftier and firmer faith in the Universal Father, mankind will not discover the way out of its troubles. Only through the initiative of religion will humanity be rescued from dissension and united in hearts’ fellowship. And if religiously minded men and women are to leaven with the spirit of fellowship this love-lorn and [Page 642] lonely world until the whole be leavened, that which they will need beyond all else is that they have in their hearts no place where doubt or fear may enter but be possessed with the invincible assurance that under God the whole movement of evolution is with us in this endeavor, that no difficulty, no delay, no defeat which may take shape as we advance can ever stem the onward march of Heaven’s purpose, that within man’s soul to-day are ample powers to win all that we desire, and that the banner under which mankind will stand at last united is that spiritual faith in the love of Almighty God, which is the universal heritage of us all.

. . . .

Upon the conclusion of this paper, an evangelist who was to lead out the discussion, confessed that he found no argument therewith, so he took the allotted time in putting forth personal convictions that the churches were acting as obstacles to world fellowship.

The Chairman called upon Mrs. Charles Reed Bishop, a representative from the International Bahá’í Bureau at Geneva. She said:

It is our work to break down barriers both within and outside the churches. Bahá’u’lláh said: "Associate with all the people of religions with joy and fellowship. For association is the cause of unity, and unity is the source of order in the world.” I would emphasize that point in the paper, namely, that in all ages, amidst all religions, the saints and the mystics, and those who have practised their faith, have found themselves in accord. I think this bears out the words of Jesus: “He who doeth the will of My Father shall know My doctrine.” As understanding is promised to those who practise, so it has been among all the religions that those who have practised their teachings have found themselves to be members of one great spiritual community; whereas, those who have been content with the material law of their faith have found themselves antagonistic to other religions.

In these daily meetings we have learned many particulars, and some universal propositions on religion. I see there are two main branches of the tree of religion. Yes, I know there are many branches, twigs, leaves —but it is one tree. The main branches are the Aryan and the Semitic. The former lays an accent upon the spiritual awakening of man—the divine Immanence, and inclines towards polytheism: whereas the latter has accent upon the Revelation of God, the Logos—the divine Transcendence, and leads to monotheism.

I stand by the advices of our Chairman, Sir Herbert Samuel (at the opening session’s address): ". . . let not the religions be too historic in their claims. It has been wittily said that no one may walk backwards into the future . . . The religions must show they are alive to the present day.” However, Persia has given to the world three Manifestations or Prophets of God, Zoroaster, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh. (I am sorry we do not have a Zoroastrian as representative here.) The Bahá’í Faith is a thousand years younger than its sister-faiths, but it exhibits the principle of selection and continuity of family traits. The illustrious Ancestor of the Báb was the Prophet Muḥammad, and Bahá’u’lláh is descended from the ancient Zoroastrian kings. And so we have in the Bahá’í Faith the appearance of two Prophets out of the two great branches of religion. By this alliance an old family feud is abolished; and we have an historic basis for reconciliation and fellowship.

In these meetings we have stressed the first aspect of each religion, which is the essential and spiritual. But if the secondary aspect or material law had been stressed, our experience would have been quite different. Only the spiritual aspect of each religion can make for fellowship. Therefore, we should leave this Congress resolved to lay full stress upon the primary or spiritual aspect of the religions,—and so discover our unity.

I will read a paragraph from Shoghi Effendi’s Goal of a New World Order: "Some form of a world Super-State must needs be evolved, in whose favor all the nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments, except for purpose of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions. Such a state will have to include [Page 643] within its orbit an International Executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a World Parliament whose members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a Supreme Tribunal whose judgment will have a binding effect even in such cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their case to its consideration. A world community in which all economic barriers will have been permanently demolished and the interdependence of Capital and Labor definitely recognized; in which the clamor of religious fanaticism and strife will have been forever stilled; in which the flame of racial animosity will have been finally extinguished; in which a single code of international law—the product of the considered judgment of the world's federated representatives—shall have as its sanction the instant and coercive intervention of the combined forces of the federated units; and finally a world community in which the fury of a capricious and militant nationalism will have been transmuted into an abiding consciousness of world citizenship-such indeed, appears, in its broadest outline, the Order anticipated by Bahá’u’lláh, an Order that shall come to be regarded as the fairest fruit of a slowly maturing age.”

The Reverend A. Porter was the next speaker:

I am thinking of the great number of societies among people numbering tens of thousands, who are studying what they call "foreign missions” from the standpoint of their own denomination. I have been wondering how we might reach those tens of thousands through this World Congress. I feel that there is a great need for a new textbook on missions that could be developed out of this Congress, to be placed in the hands of our groups in the various Churches; that text-book to be written from the standpoint of an appreciation rather than propaganda.

Our young people do not appreciate that God has many names. When you use the word "Alláh” they think it means some pagan god, and not God our Father or Jesus Christ. There is a great need for a textbook on the basis of all these various papers emphasizing the points in common between the various faiths that have been represented to this Congress. That, I feel, is a growing need in the Churches to-day.

In the second place, I feel there is a need for a devotional manual to be used as responsive reading in our Churches compiled from the devotional literature of all the great religions of the world. I myself, as a Congregational minister, would feel quite free in using such a manual, and I am sure my own congregation would welcome it.

In the third place, I think there is need for another manual to be used in our Sunday Schools; little stories from the great religious teachings, with their creeds in the form of drama. That is a growing need of the Churches to-day.

Without expanding these ideas I wish to express, I am convinced from my travels up and down this land among the Churches, and from my experience as Secretary for religious education for eight States in the United States, that this is really a felt need. And I trust that some committee will be appointed from this Congress to meet these needs in the near future.⁴

Dr. D. N. Maitra, a member of the Congress, from India, said:

It was on the 24th of April this year (1936) that I, with my daughter, paid a visit to the mausoleum on Mount Carmel, built over the remains of the Báb and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. And it was twenty-five years ago in this very city of London that I first attended a Bahá’í meeting and spoke there. Such is my very personal interest in and regard for the great cause which is represented by Bahá’í.

The Brahmo Somaj has not yet been properly represented at this Conference, so I will say a few words on this subject. In 1774, a Hindu was born in Bengal in a very orthodox family; Ram Mohum Roy. This man, at the age of 16, wrote a treatise against idolatry right in the face of his angry father who turned him out of the house.

————————

⁴Faiths and Fellowship, p. 313.

[Page 644] God is said to have said in our scripture that: “For the preservation of righteousness I take the human form from time to time and descend on this earth,” which is the best interpretation of incarnation. Therefore I believe we should feel that in every country from time to time a man has been born as a creation of the age and the creature of an age, whom we call "saints” and “prophets” and that no scripture is invalid, nor any book a final revelation of a divine message. I have in my bedroom, just over my head, the picture of Jesus Christ, whom I hold as a great teacher of morality and ideal life to men. Ram Mohum Roy studied in the Hebrew language the Bible so thoroughly that he wrote, when he was thirty-six or thirty-seven, a book called Precepts of Jesus, The Way to Happiness and Peace in Life. That an orthodox Hindu should write a precept of Jesus and stress that faith caused a great sensation. He studied the Qur’án in Arabic and brought out the unitarian element in the Muslim faith. And of course he studied his own scripture and said that pure Hinduism was the monotheism of the Upanishads. In 1828, he founded the first theistic Church in India.

I will quote a few lines from the Trust Deed: “The Trust shall at all times permit the said building as and for the place of public meetings of all sorts and descriptions of people without distinction as shall behave and conduct themselves in orderly, sober, religious and devout manner; for the worship and adoration of the eternal, unsearchable and immutable Being who is Author and Preserver of the universe; . . . that no sermon, discourse, or hymn be delivered, made or used in such worship but to the promotion of the contemplation of the Author and Preserver of the universe, to promotion of charity, morality, piety, benevolence, virtue and the extending of the bond of union between men of all religions, persuasions and creeds.”⁵

Madame Barry-Orlova, lecturer from the International Bahá’í Community, was announced. And she said:

Bahá’u’lláh has said: “Speed ye out of your sepulchers.” What is the sepulcher? The sepulcher is the denial of humanity, the limitation and the ignorance of the Manifestation of God, He who manifests the splendor, the glory and bounty and the gift of God; the Messenger that comes from God with a message that changes the whole world; that stirs it from its sleep; that awakens it from its death, illuminating our soul; that envisions its mind with new splendor and new glory and new beauty; which opens its eyes that are closed in blindness; that makes the ear hear; that makes the heart the living kingdom of God. And only through this awakening, only through this rebirth can we know God.

To deny one Prophet is to deny all the Prophets. If you are from Islám, and you say, "I do not believe in Jesus,” then you do not believe in Muḥammad. He himself said so. If you say: “I believe in Moses and I do not believe in Zoroaster, in Buddha or in Muḥammad, or in Jesus,” then you do not believe in Moses, because they were and are One and ever shall be One Spirit. As Bahá’u’lláh says, "The lamps are many. The Light is one. . . . Speed ye from your sepulchers.” That is the message of fellowship.

M. Gabriel Gobron, representing Caodaism or Renovated Buddhism, said:

Please excuse my broken English, but I am a poor Frenchman who finds English a very difficult language. I would like to put in a word for a new religion which is renovated Buddhism. This new faith numbers one million adherents and is not yet officially recognized. It welcomes Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, whose wonders are venerated equally with those of Jesus Christ. The renovated Buddhism is essentially the reconciliation of races and peoples through the achievement of religious unity. It is surely the real spirit of Bahá’u’lláh.⁶

Mr. St. Barbe Baker spoke as follows:

When I was in Palestine a little while ago I had the great privilege of meeting Shoghi Effendi, who is Guardian of the Bahá’í Cause. I also met many other local

————————

⁵Ibid., pp. 313-14.

⁶Ibid., p. 315.

[Page 645] inhabitants who told me stories about ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. It is not generally realized how wonderful was the contribution He made to peace. Three years before the Great War He realized what was coming, and insisted that His Persian settlers should plant wheat, which they did, and it was stored. And when the Turks evacuated Palestine this wheat was brought forward to feed the starving population. This shows the practical aspect of their Movement. Do you not see in it a solution? Both the spiritual and the scientific working together, one the complement of the other.

I wish to give you the words of a prayer recited by the Báb: "Is there any Remover of difficulties save God? Say praise be to God. He is God. All are His servants and all are standing by His command. Is there any Remover of difficulties save God? Say praise be to God. He is God. All are his servants and all are standing by his command.” What? These dictators God’s servants? Yes, all are His servants. All are standing by His command. These protagonists, these leaders of sectional movements which we think add conflict to our ideals? Yes, all are God’s servants, all are standing by His command. Even the people we think are our enemies are God’s servants.

The next speaker was Mr. R. P. Pandya:

We have all been talking about the unity of the spiritual and the material and about the Fellowship of Faiths, but how to attain it—that is the question. One contribution is very important; the preparation of textbooks which will play a part in uniting the thoughts of all, and giving knowledge to the people. At present there is much ignorance of the various religions in the world. Unless we know something about these religions, is it possible for us to have a fellowship of faiths?⁷

Then Mr. K. M. Parikh of Baroda, India, spoke:

I strongly differ from the discordant notes struck by some regarding the importance of such conferences. It is this conference which has made it possible for people of different religions and countries to gather together and to think on and decide the problems of world-fellowship. And not only am I hopeful about the future possibilities of this Congress, but I would say that it has established a feeling of world-fellowship—unity of God and brotherhood of man—in the hearts of those good souls who are assembled here. For how could I have dared to stand on this platform in this simple hand-spun attire, but for the spirit of toleration, freedom, and appreciation which pervades this Congress. And I hope that the time is not far off when what we see and feel inside this Congress will spread far and wide outside it.

Now what is science? Science is a body of systematic thought. But religion is a body of systematic thought and, therefore, it is a science. And those who are really anxious to verify the truths of this science must have nerves and readiness to perform spiritual experimentation which presupposes annihilation of ego with its many evil trappings.

Complete union with God—the supreme goal of all religions, and the birthright of every being is attained by only a few. But for those vast numbers of people who have neither the qualifications nor the willingness to go to this highest heaven we must bring heaven on earth. To us Hindus, religion is not something that is superimposed; it permeates all good aspects of life. Hence, to me, as it is to Mr. Burke, Mr. Ghandi and many others, economics and politics are nothing but expressions of religion in practical life. Therefore I feel strongly that so long as we cannot bring not only bread and butter, but also love, light, and freedom to the vast masses of toiling humanity, our ideas of fellowship will remain mere figments of imagination.⁸

. . . .

————————

⁷Ibid., p. 315.

⁸Ibid., pp. 316-17.

Note: The résumé is wanting mention of Mr. Frank Hirt from Leeds, an active worker in the Labor Movement there. This speaker told of his search for truth and eventual discovery of the Bahá’í principles as the solution of the world's problem, with emphasis upon the unity of religions, the new economic and social Order, with equality between the sexes universally established,—and urged consideration of Bahá’u’lláh’s Ground Plan for World Fellowship.