I decided to write my first entry about the covenant because it is such a central issue in the Baha’i Faith (and we just had our celebration of it in November).In the Baha’i Faith there are two distinct covenants. They are called the greater covenant and the lesser covenant. The former is a general sort of agreement that God will continously send Messengers who will provide us with guidance. (Although it would appear that humanity doesn’t really keep its end of the bargain, what with the killing of practically all of the Manifestations of God throughout known history.) And the latter is a specific agreement entered into on one part by Baha’u'llah, whom the Baha’is believe is the latest such Messenger and His followers to be obedient to His laws and instructions and on the other where humanity receives in return unity and harmony.Ofcourse, as any lawyer will tell you, when you make a contract or agreement it is just a matter of time until some schmuck comes along and breaks it. And in the lingo of the Baha’is Faith, those who have not kept their part of the agreement (in other words, they haven’t been loyal) are branded “covenant breakers”.
Needless to say, the covenant that has been broken in these instances has been the lesser one. That is, a person has acted in a way which was contrary to Baha’u'llah’s teachings or instructions. I suppose those responsible for the martyrdom of previous Manifestations would be considered covenant breakers (of the greater variety). Surprisingly the stigma of breaking the lesser covenant is much greater.
It has always fascinated me to see the reaction of other Baha’is to even the words “covenant breaker”. Mention of it within a group of Baha’is will tend to lower the temperature a few degrees and sent eyes shifting about the room uncomfortably. Most Baha’is incorrectly assume that we are forbidden from reading covenant breaker material or books and some Baha’is have so totally misunderstood this whole concept that they have even developed superstitions around it; believing for example, that one will become physically ill if exposed to such text.
This isn’t all that surprising when you realize that in this Dispensation there have been bitter power struggles at each transitional period. First, the Bab’s appointment of Subhi-Azal as the leader of the Babis in His abscence; creating a long lasting friction between him and his half-brother Baha’u'llah, when the latter declared Himself as Him Whom God Shall Manifest. Then there was the appointment of Abdul’Baha in Baha’u'llah’s will as the center of His covenant and the interpreter of His words. This never sat quite well with Abdul’Baha’s younger half-brother, Muhammad Ali, who was second in order of succession. And after Abdul’Baha’s passing, there was another fallout as quite a few people, with varying motivations questioned the appointment of Shoghi Effendi as the Guardian and even in some cases, openly contested the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha, which gives him that station. Finally, after the passing of the Guardian, there was another tumultous period where some minor factions where created as a result of the claim put forward by the Hand of the Cause of God, Charles Mason Remey, that he was the second Guardian. In each instance, a small group of Baha’is defected and were, as a result, named covenant breakers.
I remember one non-Baha’i friend of mine joking about this abbreviated history, saying that had the Holy Family been around at the time of today’s TV talk shows they would be getting advice from Dr. Phil.
Its important to note that in the Baha’i Faith we don’t believe in the devil or even hell. Instead of a duality, we believe there is only good in the world because it was created by God who is the embodiment of Perfection and Beauty. To us, anything which lacks such qualities, can be thought of as ‘evil’ but even then, evil as a metaphysical reality does not exist. Having said that, in the Baha’i folklore, the covenant breaker has somehow supplanted the role of the devil or evil itself. To witness a Baha’is reaction to covenant breakers is akin to witnessing the visceral reaction of a Southern Baptist to the Anti-Christ.
This lore may have its roots in the Writings, where covenant breakers are referred to in the most vitriolic manner. They are even described using the analogies of an illness — such as leprosy or a contagion. I’m personally astounded by Shoghi Effendi’s reaction to the death of Majdi’d-Dín where he figuratively seems to be dancing on a 100 year-old man’s grave. I have a very difficult time reconciling this with the repeated instructions in the Writings to love one’s enemies. And it is based on these Writings, that Baha’is who otherwise are loving, caring and gentle folk, will actually shun covenant breakers, in effect ostracising them from the Baha’i community.
Ofcourse the paradox that this conceptual framework presents is lost on most Baha’is: if this be God’s Cause, how can its light be extinguished? or put another way, if you believe Baha’u'llah is indeed who He says He is, how can any mortal scheme or design damage, deflect or in any way perturp His Cause from its course?
Baha’u'llah says:
The Hand of Omnipotence hath established His Revelation upon an unassailable, an enduring foundation. Storms of human strife are powerless to undermine its basis, nor will men’s fanciful theories succeed in damaging its structure.
Interestingly enough, Baha’u'llah complains in Tarazat about Mirza Hadi Dawlat-Abadi’s instruction to Babis to refrain from communicating with Him. They were, in effect, shunning Baha’u'llah by not entering into His Presence, nor reading or responding to His letters. Mirza Hadi was a supporter of Mirza Yahya, and had been appointed by him to represent and succeed him. So in effect he was the de facto head of the Azalis or the first group of covenant breakers.
But what really bothers me about all this is the extent to which shunning is applied. Its practice doesn’t just extend to the immediate persons cast out, but to their spouses, children, and even grandchildren — unless they explicitly denounce and separate themselves, both physically and spiritually from the offender. This drastic measure rends the loving bonds between families and friends and causes devastation in ordinary lives. It a tragic irony that a Faith which holds as one of its central tenents, unity and harmony would engage such a vicious tool.
A lost point in all this is that the break away groups are so small that they are for all practical purposes insignificant compared to the Baha’i Faith. They number in the hundreds and are in geographically localized communities, while the Baha’i Faith numbers in the millions and is one of the most wide spread world religions today. I don’t understand how the Faith can make such a boogie man out of a handful of people who the vast majority of its people will never meet.
The funny thing about it is that the matter is quite clear cut. I really believe that any Baha’i would easily be able to see that Mason Remey, for example, didn’t have a leg to stand on when he attempted to designate himself as the second Guardian. That goes for the other attempts of schisms during the history of the Faith as well. What I don’t understand is why Baha’is don’t simply inform themselves of the facts and arm themselves with knowledge, instead of reacting with fear and apprehension.
The loaded label of covenant breaker is bandied about quite carelessly and more than not, totally misapplied, by the average Baha’i. It has become a knee jerk reaction to call those who express different opinions on religious matters as covenant breakers or “borderline” covenant breakers (I suppose this is a much easier than actually thinking for themselves or coming up with answers for challenging questions). Yet, this authority does not reside in the hands of just anyone in the Baha’i Faith. In fact, there is a very formal and specific way that a person can be designated as a covenant breaker. Scripturally, the authority resides exclusively with the Hands of the Cause of God (sadly, currently there is only one living Hands of the Cause of God: Dr. Varqa) [Edit: passed away September 22nd, 2007]; who were appointed by the Guardian. During the life of Shoghi Effendi, he chose to remove this authority from the Hands and added it to his own responsabilities. I’m not sure exactly how he justified this or explained it. As far as I know, there is no scriptural evidence to back it up. After his death, this authority was claimed by the Universal House of Justice. Again, I’m not sure how or under what specific scriptural authority this was done.
Having said that, I can actually understand the need of shunning or ostracism when the Faith was young with only a few followers. The idea that at such a tender age it might schism into a multitude of factions and lose its unity and coherence was a valid one. If the provisions had not been made for such a strong reponse at that time, who knows what would have happened. But today, with the success of the Faith, do we still need the same measures of protection? Or are these same measures now innappropriate ?
Perhaps it would help to think about the covenant as it is referred to here by Abdul’Baha:
O army of God! Through the protection and help vouchsafed by the Blessed Beauty–may my life be a sacrifice to His loved ones–ye must conduct yourselves in such a manner that ye may stand out distinguished and brilliant as the sun among other souls.
Should any one of you enter a city, he should become a centre of attraction by reason of his sincerity, his faithfulness and love, his honesty and fidelity, his truthfulness and loving-kindness towards all the peoples of the world, so that the people of that city may cry out and say: `This man is unquestionably a Bahá’í, for his manners, his behaviour, his conduct, his morals, his nature, and disposition reflect the attributes of the Bahá’ís.’
Not until ye attain this station can ye be said to have been faithful to the Covenant and Testament of God. For He hath, through irrefutable Texts, entered into a binding Covenant with us all, requiring us to act in accordance with His sacred instructions and counsels.
I truly wonder how our reaction, as Baha’is, to the words ‘covenant breaker’ (or even to our very lives) would be altered, if we kept the above words fresh in our minds.
Related posts: