On Sen's "The Knower as Servant"

These are some of my thoughts while reading Sen's "The knower as servant."

"However when I think of the needy, whom knowledge can help, it is not the merely ignorant, but rather the conflicted, that I have in mind."

A lot of my work on the Internet has been driven by concerns for people who might be confused, distracted or demoralized by Baha'i feuds.

"I think that the role of the servant is a better model for the learned Bahai than that of a scout, because the scout explores where he wants to go, while the servant helps people where they are."

In my understanding, it is not a part of the definition of "scout" that she explores where she wants to go. In fact it seems clear to me from the context of Mr. Lample's paper that he's talking about the kind of scout who explores where her community might go, as a service to the community.

I see scouting and pastoral work as two possible ways of serving. I don't see scouting as inherently any more self-centered than pastoral work. It depends entirely on the spirit and manner in which it is done. Helping people in distress is notorious for its possibilities as an excuse for cruelty, violence and other ugliness. It's also notorious for its use as a way of recruiting people to serve some other people's economic and political interests. That includes economic and political interests masquerading as religious pursuits.

Since we moved to China, I've been doing a lot of scouting to prepare for my outings with Patty. Since she started having trouble with her knees, it's been very hard for her to walk, especially up and down stairs. I've been practicing using buses and the Metro, and finding the places we need and want to go, for shopping, for doctors and for recreation for example, to make things as easy as possible for her when we go together. I often have to put off exploring places that appeal to me, and when I do explore them, I don't call it "scouting."

"If we are first clear that the function of religious knowledge (theology) and of the theologian is to minister to the faithful, where they are and with whatever needs they have . . ."

I practice and promote using all of our knowledge and capacities to serve Baha'u'llah's purposes, in accordance with His prescriptions. I don't see theology as a special case. My understanding of Baha'u'llah's purposes includes, but is not limited to, what I would call "ministering to the faithful." If the intent here is to promote using theology only for "ministering to the faithful," that sounds very unhealthy to me.

I practice and promote walking and working with people wherever they are. For me that includes serving all their interests, not only what I would call their needs. It includes where they are going and what they are trying to do with their lives.

I would not agree that "that the function of religious knowledge (theology) and of the theologian is to minister to the faithful, where they are and with whatever needs they have," without further clarification. However, I'll keep it in mind as a context for what follows. I'll also keep in mind "Very often, intellectual conflicts come because what our innate feeling for the good tells us is not in line with what we think 'religious' teachings are, or what 'being religious' means in practice." I'll consider, as a possible context for what follows, using knowledge to respond to the needs of people who are torn between their own sense of good and of right and wrong, and what they think their religion says about it.

"In the second place, if we are not clear that our scouting is a hobby, and the real work is serving the community where it finds itself, we set up a trap of pride or frustration for ourselves, because we imagine we have some right to set the agenda."

That is not at all my idea of a scout. I would never call that scouting. I would simply call it exploring. It seems clear to me that that is not what Mr. Lample means by "scout."

Mr. Lample writes:

"Perhaps the learned Bahá’í is more like the 'scout' who helps to guide an expedition on a journey into unexplored territory. This is someone who participates actively in the journey, but whose specialized knowledge, skills, and experience informs various aspects of the struggle to make progress: constructive perspectives into the past, present, and future; insight and technical capacity for ongoing study of the text; problem posing and problem solving; the defining of culture and intercultural relations. On this journey, the learned individual/scout does not have authority, and, while making a vital contribution, like any other participant is fallible and learns over time."

Back to Sen's paper:

"Thirdly, the idea of the scholar as a scout going out to unexplored territories implies that the community already knows all it needs to know about the territory it now occupies."

Not at all. Not in the least. Totally false. It implies that some people might be interested in learning about where we might go from here. It implies that knowledge about the territory the community now occupies is not all that anyone needs or wants to know. Patty's interests in Shanghai are not, and never will be, limited to the apartment complex where we live, or to all the places where we've already been. That does not in the least imply that we already know all we need to know about where we live or where we've been.

"If we are first clear that the function of religious knowledge (theology) and of the theologian is to minister to the faithful, where they are and with whatever needs they have, then there is no need to make a priori rules about what this involves."

I agree that there don't need to be any a priori rules about what it involves. I also don't think there need to be any a priori rules about what it does not involve. In particular:

- There does not need to be a rule that says it can't involve any scouting.
- There does not need to be a rule that says it must always involve responding to distress.

"It may involve archaeological activity, in the form of text-critical and philological work that re-examines those areas in which the Text seems to be teaching one thing, while the Spirit is telling us another. It may involve being the impartial, or critical, observer and reporter, for self-deception is the inevitable accompaniment of a misfit between what we think we ought to think and what we know is right. The one who cries that the king 'is in the altogether, the altogether,' is also serving the community."

I would say that those are all possible ways of serving the community. That might be a response to Mr. Lample's "The learned Baha'i is not . . ." statements. Instead of that, I might say, "Baha'i scholarship is not limited to . . ." and I would say the same thing about scouting.

I don't see Mr. Lample depreciating archaeological activity, the application of academic methods to examine apparent conflicts between the Text and the Spirit, or impartial and critical observing and reporting. I see him saying that "the community of believers is not dependent upon a body of specialists in order to understand the meaning of the text," that "the purpose of Bahá’í scholarship is not merely to explain the community at a moment in history and present the resulting picture as its reality," that "the 'true' meaning of the Faith is not lost somewhere in the past, to be recaptured by excavating layers of erroneous interpretation and practice," that "the teachings of Baha'u'llah have an intended meaning and an intended aim," that "the resolution of important questions requires more than the application of methods of the natural sciences,"and that "it is not possible to stand apart from the community to study it without influencing it or being influenced by it."