God and Balance

How the Concept of the Oneness of 

God Facilitates Spiritual Equilibrium 

Based on my notes for a talk given in Second Life at the Library of World Religions, a virtual venue dedicated to promoting interfaith dialogue, understanding and collaboration.

Most of us admire the qualities of love, wisdom, independence, justice, mercy, honesty, courtesy, etc. when we see them in others, and would like to possess these attributes for ourselves. As human beings, we feel an innate attraction towards their beauty and perfection, just as we feel an inherent aversion to their opposites: hatred, ignorance, unfairness, vengeance, dishonesty, rudeness, etc. However, not all individuals develop each of these qualities to the same degree. Some people seem to be born with innate strengths in certain attributes and inherent weaknesses in others. To some, acquiring knowledge may come easy, but loving others may be a challenge, or vice versa. Others may feel inclined towards mercy and recoil from the apparent harshness of justice, or vice versa. Still others find it easy to be frank and sincere, but may have a hard time moderating it with courtesy and dignity, or vice versa.

Furthermore, the process of developing the virtues we find lacking in ourselves can be a long, difficult and potentially frustrating one. Because of this, we may give in to the temptation to center our attention on one quality or another, often to the exclusion of others. Some may use an imagined self image as an excuse not to make the effort to acquire the qualities they lack: “That’s just the way I am”; or “I was born that way”; or “No use trying to change now”. Others may protect themselves from behind a dogmatic or extremist position: “If you just love everybody, everything else will work out alright in the end”; or “Courtesy is just hypocrisy; we should show ourselves to others exactly as we are”; or “Why seek justice on this earthly plane? Divine justice will be done in the next world”.

This overly focused approach can be a source of imbalance in our lives, because it leads to extremes and, as Bahá'u'lláh so eloquently put it, “In all matters moderation is desirable. If a thing is carried to excess, it will prove a source of evil,”[1] “Whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert a beneficial influence… Whoso cleaveth to justice, can, under no circumstances, transgress the limits of moderation.”[2] This principle even applies to matters that are otherwise considered beneficial, but which can be harmful when carried to extremes, such eating certain kinds of foods, getting enough sleep and recreation, or any other aspect of civilized life: “If carried to excess, civilization will prove as prolific a source of evil as it had been of goodness when kept within the restraints of moderation.”[3]

Even the beautiful qualities of love, wisdom, independence, justice, mercy, honesty, courtesy, etc. can become harmful when taken to the extreme. However, achieving moderation in these virtues does not mean we should practice them in a mediocre fashion, but rather achieve balance among them. Ian Semple, then member of the Universal House of Justice, has been quoted as saying,

“It is a great problem in individual spiritual growth for the aspiring follower of the Way to distinguish between moderation and mediocrity. We are called to heights of perfection higher than we can contemplate, but are exhorted to moderation in all things. How can this be? It is, I believe, but one aspect of the need for the individual to promote in himself the growth of all virtues and capacities, but in due balance one with another. When they get out of balance, a distortion of character is produced.”[4]

Let us see a few examples of this. Parents may love their sons and daughters very much, but if that love is not tempered by wisdom, it can leave their children spoiled and cause great harm later in their lives. Conversely, a person may be extremely intelligent and highly educated, but without love this will only exacerbate any difficulties in a relationship. Similarly, in some cultures, honesty is valued so much that people often go to the extreme of hurting each other with their frankness. Other cultures value courtesy so highly that they go to the opposite extreme of not being sincere with each other for fear of hurting them. Only by achieving a delicate balance between honesty and courtesy can they avoid approaching these two extremes.

In some cases, balance is achieved when different sectors of society act as is required by their different roles. For example, in order for a society to function correctly, its governing institutions must act with absolute, blind justice, which means giving to each his or her due with equality, impartiality and consistency. The individual members of that society, however, need to treat each other with mercy, which means being tolerant, quick to forgive and magnanimous. It is disruptive to the peace and wellbeing of all when governments start to bend the rules in favor of one or another, or when individuals become inflexible, intolerant and vindictive. In this case, then, balance is achieved by putting complementary virtues in their appropriate place and occasion.

In other cases, moderation and balance are not achieved by acting the same way at all times, but rather by spreading out our focus among different stages and occasions of our life. As the famous verse in Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 reads,

“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”[5]

This principle of moderation through balance applies not only to families, cultures and societies, but even to international relations in the geopolitical arena. For example, during the so-called ‘Cold War’, the United States justified its attitude towards the URSS in the name of freedom or liberty, while the Soviet Union justified its position in the name of social justice and equity. Both liberty and justice are virtues that are essential to good governance and social wellbeing, but only when they are in balance. To impose a system that favors one to the exclusion of the other, as both countries were doing, was to invite potential disaster, as very nearly occurred in the pre-perestroika nuclear crises, and inevitable collapse, as seen in the gradual paralysis and final downfall of the communist regime, as well as the successive meltdowns caused by unbridled capitalism in many parts of the world.

So what does all of this have to do with Divine Oneness? My last article discussed how the concept of the oneness of God has facilitated in the past and can continue to facilitate our sociopolitical evolution, defined as development towards increasingly large, complex and inclusive forms of social organization. We saw that, since communities’ different concepts of God afforded them cohesion and identity, bringing clans together as tribes, and city-states together as nations, required the unification of that Central Point of their collective lives. Historically, this was achieved either by subordinating lesser deities under a Supreme Being, as in the case of most Eastern or Dharmic religions, or by eliminating local gods entirely in favor of One All-powerful God, as in the case of the various Abrahamic religions of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

Now, this integrating of various deities into one God also served another very important purpose. At an earlier stage in the evolution of our paradigms of God, each clan or tribe had its own deity that represented the essence of their ideals and provided them with a central point for the construction of their collective identity. Frequently, these diverse gods were the extreme expression of one quality or another. There were war gods and peace gods, gods of creation and gods of destruction. One was the incarnation of severe justice and retribution, while another was the merciful, the compassionate. Some represented the vigor of youth, while others stood for the wisdom of age. The list could continue ad infinitum.

These deities not only represented the highest ideals of each community, but also served to promote or reinforce those qualities among the people. Warlike or peaceful gods supported clans and tribes in developing warlike or peaceful characteristics. A strictly just, punishing god justified the development of justice systems based on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, while under compassionate, merciful gods the people institutionalized softer, more lenient approaches to tribal discipline.

The socio-cultural growth and development of these communities was restricted by the imbalance caused by this excessive concentration on one or another of the divine qualities, to the exclusion of other contrasting or complementary virtues. However, as particularistic deities started to fuse into one universal God, their qualities also merged and entered into relations of complementarity, which in turn enabled societies and cultures to seek and find that balance within themselves. This harmonization had the effect of freeing and developing the latent potential of the human spirit, which soon blossomed into new forms of social, cultural, artistic, scientific and institutional expression. The most precious fruits of the world’s civilizations bear eloquent testimony to these magnificent achievements.

So what of the current situation? Today we find that particularistic deities have largely been replaced by the concept of one All-powerful God in the major world religions, such as Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. However, many still see these religions as worshiping different gods. This idea is reinforced by the fact that the diverse denominations into which these religions have become divided tend to emphasize one or another of the qualities attributed to God. Is the Sovereign of all more of a stern Judge or a guiding Counselor? Is the Heavenly Father a strict disciplinarian, or a patiently educating parent? Does the fact that there is only one God mean that only my God exists, to the exclusion of your God, or that both Gods are the same God?

This situation is further complicated in the present day by the various materialistic ideologies – political or otherwise – that have arisen over the past century or so to challenge the place of religion as the organizing principle of social life. The central axis of these ideologies is no longer the concept of one God per se, but rather stand-alone ideals such as social justice, liberty or freedom, material wellbeing, etc. Some have even been blatantly particularistic and divisionistic in nature, promoting racism, class struggle, nationalism, and even pseudo-religious agendas of exclusion.

This inclination to favor one ideal or group to the exclusion of all others both reflects and reinforces a modern trend towards the polarization of complex issues into black-and-white, right-and-wrong formulae. You favor either capitalism or communism, or some middle way between the two, as if there were no third or fourth alternatives. You are either an atheist or a religious fanatic, pro-life or pro-choice, red or blue, black or white, etc.

The result is a simplified or “dumbed down” world view based on false dichotomies (promoted to a great extent by the mass media) that permeates all aspects of life with facile classifications and extreme positions for everything from laundry detergent to world peace. On the one hand, this makes the pressing issues of the day all but non-tractable, as the prevailing tonic is not consensus-building but debate-mongering. On the other hand, this tendency is tearing apart the organized life of today’s families, communities and nations, as irresolvable issues that affect everyone become a matter of personal choice and preference, which each one is entitled to impose on others under the pretext of individual freedoms, rights and prerogatives.

The solution, of course, is a return to the basics, to recognize the underlying universal principles in each issue and use that as a starting point from which to work towards consensus. But in doing so, we must not oppose one principle against another, but recognize and explore their multiple complementarities. Whenever a problem is posed, we must not jump directly to proposing solutions, but ask what principles are involved, and work upwards from there. Otherwise, it will be all too easy to fall back into our old familiar particularities. In its “Promise of World Peace”, the Universal House of Justice emphasized the salutary effect of this approach:

“There are spiritual principles, or what some call human values, by which solutions can be found for every social problem. Any well-intentioned group can in a general sense devise practical solutions to its problems, but good intentions and practical knowledge are usually not enough. The essential merit of spiritual principle is that it not only presents a perspective which harmonizes with that which is immanent in human nature, but it also induces an attitude, a dynamic, a will, an aspiration, which facilitate the discovery and implementation of practical measures. Leaders of governments and all in authority would be well served in their efforts to solve problems if they would first seek to identify the principles involved and then be guided by them.”

Now, this exercise of identifying universal principles and seeing them as a whole, in order to join them in complementarity and balance, is similar to earlier historical processes of joining multiple gods into one, all-encompassing God. In fact, it is more than a mere similarity, because by definition, any human conception of God is the sum total and highest expression of the greatest principles and most noble qualities that the human mind is capable of conceiving. Our innate attraction to such principles and qualities, then, can be seen as synonymous with love of God, even in those who deny His existence. To personify such an abstract concept and give it a name – also an inherently human trait – could go a long way towards promoting allegiance to their universality, complementarity and balance, as opposed to promoting particular principles, qualities and virtues to the exclusion of the rest.

So to summarize, divine qualities, human virtues or universal principles are complementary in nature. They are beneficial only when moderation is achieved through a delicate balance among them all, but can be harmful when practiced to the exclusion of the others. The concept of one, all-encompassing God, as the sum total of all of these beautiful qualities in their maximum expression but in perfect harmony, can have a beneficial impact on all aspects of human endeavor, from individual and family life to the organization of communities and nations when placed at the center of their collective life, ideals and sense of identity.  

Notes: 

1. Bahá'u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, comp. Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, trans. Habib Taherzadeh et al. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1978), 69.
2. Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, trans. Shoghi Effendi, 2d ed. (Wilmette, Ill., 1952: Bahá'í Publishing Trust), 216, 342.
3. Ibid., 342-343.
4. Ian Semple, "The indispensability of consultation for ordering human affairs," unpublished seminar quoted by Agnes Ghaznavi, in “The Family Repairs and Maintenance Manual”, (Oxford:  George Ronald, 1989), 71.
5. From King James' Version.