As my fellow Baha’is in Iran face a renewed wave of persecutions, there are some who charge the Baha’i community to be perpetrators of violence.
Of course these charges have no credibility but still I thought it would be fruitful to go to the source and see what Baha’u'llah commands:
Beware lest ye shed the blood of any one. Unsheathe the sword of your tongue from the scabbard of utterance, for therewith ye can conquer the citadels of men’s hearts. We have abolished the law to wage holy war against each other. God’s mercy hath, verily, encompassed all created things, if ye do but understand.
Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
And again, speaking to the Babi and Baha’i community of the time, Baha’u'llah explains not only the injunction to eschew violence but He explains in no uncertain terms that His Cause has no desire to gain or hold power in the form of civil authority:
Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men. Thus have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace. Say: O people! Sow not the seeds of discord among men, and refrain from contending with your neighbor, for your Lord hath committed the world and the cities thereof to the care of the kings of the earth, and made them the emblems of His own power, by virtue of the sovereignty He hath chosen to bestow upon them. He hath refused to reserve for Himself any share whatever of this world’s dominion. To this He Who is Himself the Eternal Truth will testify. The things He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men’s hearts, that He may cleanse them from all earthly defilements, and enable them to draw nigh unto the hallowed Spot which the hands of the infidel can never profane. Open, O people, the city of the human heart with the key of your utterance.
Tablet to Nabíl-i-‘Azam
I was going to write this in the comment section of a previous post but Baha’u'llah’s clear words deserve a more prominent exposition. I’m going to delve further into the question of church and state within the Baha’i Faith a bit later. But can’t resist for now to touch on it since it is so important an issue.
It has been not only an important issue but a contentious one for almost the whole duration of the Faith. Originally those who sought to cast the Baha’i Faith as supportive of theocracy were mischief makers who wished it ill. For example, they spread lies and rumors that Abdu’l-Baha was not building simply a shrine (of the Bab) but a citadel from which He would attempt to overthrow the government.
More recently the perpetrators are well meaning but ignorant Baha’is who have not bothered to read the consistent, clear and repeated Writings of their own Faith about this matter. Such error is dangerous whether the intention behind it is evil or not because it misrepresents the Baha’i Faith and it opens it to attacks from those who mistake it as having temporal motivations.
All I can say to fellow Baha’is who are under the wrong impression that their Faith promotes or condones in any way a theocratic model is, please, inform yourself. There are clear texts. You have but to read and study them.
Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.
Shoghi Effendi
If you don’t know where to begin, a good place to start would be Church & State , a book that has passed Baha’i pre-publication review (as have all books published by Kalimat) [Ed. please see comments for clarification]. It contains a methodically and exhaustively collection of Baha’i texts on the relationship of church and state. Here is a recent and relevant entry from the author’s blog.
There is no shame in not knowing but there is shame in wallowing in ignorance. As a Baha’i the standard is extremely high and our duty is to fulfill individual investigation of truth.
God bless.
“He hath refused to reserve for Himself any share whatever of this world’s dominion.” (Baha’ullah)
Indeed.
“My authority and dominion are not of a secular nature. If they were, my friends and associates would fight for me to deliver me from the Jews. But at this time, my dominion is not of this kind.” (Jesus)
“All I can say to fellow Baha’is who are under the wrong impression that their Faith promotes or condones in any way a theocratic model is, please, inform yourself.”
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/theocracy.html
“McGlinn’s discussion of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Writings focuses on the Risaliy-i Siyasiyyah, The Secret of Divine Civilization and A Traveler’s Narrative, texts where ‘Abdu’l-Bahá decries ‘ulama interference in matters of state as evidence that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá supported the separation of church and state. He omits in Abdu’l-Bahá’s explicit references to the Universal House of Justice enacting secular law [qanun] and civil law [akham-i madaniyyih.] … The Central Figures called for a separation of the ‘ulama from the state, not a Western-style separation of ‘church and state.’”
Etc. Etc.
Andrew,
yes this tactic is often used by some. Basically saying well we “don’t believe in the theocracy that you don’t believe in either”. Fact is theocracy is theocracy, Wester, Eastern, Martian or Venusian. As well the texts are clear and irrefutable.
Rather than picking one or two quotes and trying to ram our own understanding into them, the wiser course is to examine the whole body of work from the Central Figures. Which is why I recommend starting with McGlinn’s book - he goes to the source.
With regards to Maneck’s question, if you follow the link above to McGlinn’s blog you can read a post where he talks about a similar objection regarding the role of the UHJ. It doesn’t address Maneck’s point directly but it does shed further light on the matter.
Maneck writes: “No discussion of the Bahá’í Teachings on this matter is complete without reference to the elucidations of the Universal House of Justice.”
This seems to be the gist of her argument: that the body of work from the Central Figures must include (presumably) equal weight (at least) given to the “elucidations of the Universal House of Justice” of the Haifa-based Baha’i World Faith. The UHJ trumps private interpretation of the Writings of the Central Figures. Apparently.
Maneck’s opinion seems to be (or actually is?) the consensus opinion within the Baha’i World Faith, under the direction of the UHJ.
“Although I felt unworthy of being a Baha’i, I doubted the authority of the Faith as it now stands. I think something went wrong. I do not think that today’s Baha’i Faith is the Faith that Baha’u’llah intended. That is my opinion; it is not fact, but it is the reason why I left the Baha’i Faith.” — Jorge Sanchez
Hi Steve,
You wrote: “Here’s what Baquia actually wrote:
…you should know that the Baha’i youth in Iran are as much polluted with the filth of the society they inhabit as other youth. Corruption, prostitution, drug-use, etc. are rampant on a scale that you can not imagine….Baquia made no mention of tens of thousands of Baha’i youth. What Baquia said, if I can paraphrase it, is that Baha’i youth in Iran are getting up to the same things Muslim and other youth in Iran are getting up to, and that it’s wild/depraved. Has Baquia offered any evidence? No, but that’s par for the course around here.”
Is it really par for the course on this blog that Baquia can make any comment he wants, get called on it, but not be able to back it up with evidence? This is clearly not the case or everything Baquia writes should be regarded as untrue including his other allegations about the Baha’i community. I do not think everything Baquia writes is untrue. However, when he or anyone makes such an inflammatory categorical statement of ‘fact’ he should be expected to back it up with evidence.
If I were to post a comment to the effect that psychopathic behavior among gays and lesbians in the US is rampant you better believe Beth, Amanda and others would demand that I back up such a statement with evidence! I know such an assertion is blatantly untrue so I would never make it. If a white new Zealander posted on a blog that there is rampant drug-use, corruption and prostitution among the Maoris in New Zealand but cannot back it up with evidence, the only inference that can be drawn is that they are making the statement to deliberately smear Maoris in New Zealand. Would you agree or disagree with this conclusion Steve? What about similar comments without any supporting evidence re Hindus in Canada, Moslems in Australia, Buddhists in Thailand, Zambians in South Africa…you get my point?
You wrote: “Here’s some evidence supporting Baquia’s statement. It’s from Jared Cohen, a young and evidently very talented Westerner, who infiltrated the Middle East youth culture…”
I am sorry but nowhere can any of Jared Cohen’s comments be used to infer that drug-use, corruption and prostitution are common among Baha’i youth in Iran. This is not evidence. To say this is evidence is like using comments about youth culture in any country and asserting, ipso facto, that such behavior is rampant among a specific sub-group. If you were to argue that eating meat is common among Seventh Day Adventist youth simply because it is common in the wider youth culture in the US you would be blatantly wrong because empirical studies have clearly demonstrated the health benefits of the vegetarian lifestyle of Seventh Day Adventists. Jared Cohen’s comments are hearsay and just does not cut it as providing any evidence whatsoever of rampant behavior among Baha’is or any other religious group of youth in Iran.
Moreover, you are offering extremely indirect evidence for Baquia’s assertion while also admitting that he has not offered any evidence and that this is par for the course. Steve, Baquia cannot have his cake and eat it too - as the saying goes.
You also wrote: “Baquia made no mention of tens of thousands of Baha’i youth.” Is this supposed to somehow exonerate his malicious comment? He said drug-use, prostitution and corruption is “rampant.” Rampant means “profusely widespread.” Considering the number of Baha’i youth in Iran this means tens of thousands. Moreover, Baquia not only said rampant but rampant on “a scale that you cannot imagine.” Steve, do not try to defend the indefensible. If I wrote that prostitution, drug-use and corruption were rampant among lesbians in the US you had better believe Beth and others would call me on it; and rightly so since there is no basis in fact or even by inference for such an allegation! If I made such a statement about the lesbian community I should be rightly condemned for trying to smear them because of prejudice.
So when I call Baquia on an outrageous statement please do not try to defend it as it only makes it worse. It only highlights questions about his motive for making such a statement especially when he claims to be a Baha’i. You know as well as I do that comments are indexed by Google so when Baquia makes such a highly prejudiced categorization of an entire community people will read it and some will assume it is true even though there is not one shred of evidence to back it up.
This is why I compared his comment to Fred Glaysher’s allegation about the murder of Dan Jordan which has no basis in fact whatsoever. The only conclusion one can reach is that Baquia’s motive for making this statement is that he is deliberately trying to smear the reputation of the Baha’i youth in Iran. His effort to deflect this by references to my calling him out as “poisonous” just will not cut it.
If you really believe he can make such comments as par for the course on this board then one has the right to question any comments he has made including his allegation of corruption in Italy. The impression such comments of his ceate is that he is not just questioning based on his so called genuine concern for the Faith but that he will say or do anything to create a negative perception.
Carmen
For God’s sake Carmen, get your head out of the sand! What Baquia is talking about is reality. Youth are youth, the world over. They’re all exposed to the same influences of drugs etc. Baha’i youth are just as corruptable as anyone else.
Baha’is have to stop arrogantly assuming that just because Baha’u'llah came along we’re all suddenly more spiritual than anyone else on the earth and invunerable to whatever malady is out there. We’re not!
Baha’is have got to stop working along the lines that publicising and acknowledging the problems that currently exist within the Faith is bad because it creates a negative image and is bad for publicity. Its far better to be open and honest about it because then something can be done and people know what they’re getting into. Hiding the problems or pretending they don’t exist doesn’t make them go away. Harranging the people that advertise the problems doesn’t make the problems go away. Eventually, people have to face up to reality.
Honestly, the situation is so shitty at the moment, we’re expected to go round saying that Baha’i Faith is wonderful and joyous when it is not! Its dishonest!
That’s why I like this blog. Its fresh, its real, and its not full of bullshit like the crap that gets trotted out by the UHJ and national newsletters.
Baquia wrote:
“Fact is theocracy is theocracy, Wester, Eastern, Martian or Venusian. As well the texts are clear and irrefutable.”
Baquia, I have had some questions in my mind for some time:
Do you feel that we could differenciate between a clerical rule of society, and a democratic society where all accept a divinely ordained ideal and arbitration?
Also, can we accept the idea that some of Baha’u'llah’s writings address his contemporaries, and others address future generations and that it would be the duty of the UHj to decide which laws are to be applied at a specific time?
Grover wrote:
“Baha’is have to stop arrogantly assuming that just because Baha’u’llah came along we’re all suddenly more spiritual than anyone else on the earth and invunerable to whatever malady is out there. We’re not!”
I agree, Grover. There is some arrogance and smugness that we as Baha’is have to get rid of very fast. Being a Baha’i makes no one a better person, but a person who is supposed to have accepted an ideal towards which he claims to advance.
I clearly maintain that had I not been born into a Baha’i family with Baha’i parents who gave me a Baha’i education, I would be somewhere in Iran, or even already in the West, a much worse person than I am now.
I am not quite sure that if the scoundrel Baquia has described would automatically become an angel if he were removed from Iran and introduced in the West without a Baha’i education.
Carmen wrote:
“I am sorry but nowhere can any of Jared Cohen’s comments be used to infer that drug-use, corruption and prostitution are common among Baha’i youth in Iran.”
Carmen,
I can well believe that a child born into a Baha’i family might be contaminated by his envoronment, but again, I doubt very much if such a person would dare openly say he is a Baha’i. In any case, from what I understand there is no enrollment procedure and no voting rights for anyone wanting to call himself a Baha’i in Iran. Hence any statistics would be void.
I do believe that those who do dare risk their live by openly associating themselves with the Faith would be statistically less inclined to adopt the behaviours Baquia is describing, and if they did, they would not be considered as Baha’is.
Grover wrote: “For God’s sake Carmen, get your head out of the sand! What Baquia is talking about is reality. “
Grover, Baquia didn’t say youth are youth so this might be happening among some Baha’i youth in Iran. That I can live with. He made a categorical statement about very specific behavior being rampant. I am sorry but prostitution is not rampant among youth in every country. Pre-marital sex may be. Drug-use is not necessarily rampant either nor is corruption. I do not accept your attitude because, as I said, if the same allegations were made about other groups people would be called on it. Baquia went far beyond the normal youth behavior you are referring to and his assertion that it is pervasive has no basis in fact. It is the same thing when someone says most Moslems are terrorists - no factual basis but soon people become accustomed to characterizing the behavior of more than 1 billion by the actions of a tiny minority.
Carmen
First a couple of points of information:
Church and State was not published by Kalimat, it is self-published, which is normal for university theses and dissertations. Sometimes they are later republished by a publishing house, but the usual thing is that the student publishes them first. Kalimat agreed to distribute most of the copies I had for sale, which made sense because they were printed in the US (half the price of Europe) and US postage is cheaper than European postage. So it says on the cover, “distributed as ‘Studies in the Babi and Bahai Religions’ - volume nineteen.”
Kalimat is both a publisher and a bookseller. It sells books that other publishers have published. Pre-publication review applies only to publishing. If you start a bookshop, as a Bahai, you don’t have to get the NSA’s permission for every book you stock. But as a Bahai publisher, you do have to get the NSA’s approval for every book you publish, that refers to the Bahai Faith. So while it is true to say that every book Kalimat publishes has been approved by the NSA in the USA (an allegation to the contrary, printed in the Dutch national newsletter, is simply misinformed), this does not mean that every book it sells has been approved there.
In the case of _Church and State_ , because I live in the Netherlands it would in principle be reviewed by the NSA of the Netherlands. However the NSA here has a policy that Master’s dissertations (also called theses here) are exempt, while PhD theses (called dissertations here) have to be reviewed. Because this was a Master’s dissertation, they said I did not require a review. I did tell them I was planning to print 400 copies, and that it would be a substantial book in English, and I suggested the names of Bahais who could review it, but they did not change their decision. So the book has not been reviewed, rather it has been exempted from review. And since I think the pre-publication review policy should only apply to statements that speak for the Bahai Community, and not to what is just the author’s personal opinions, I am perfectly happy that it was exempted. A lot of other books and articles by individual Bahais should also be exempted, which would throw the onus onto their authors to get feedback to make sure that what they publish is accurate and dignified and not too likely to cause misunderstandings.
For those interested, I’ve put the Foreword and Introduction to Church and State up on my web site as a PDF:
http://www.sonjavank.com/sen/articles.htm
Second one down, and click on the big blue PDF button.
As for Susan Maneck’s critique, this does not refer to my book, but to a paper called “A theology of the State” which was published in a Journal that is called Church and State. That seems to have led to some confusion.
The critique that was bought up was that I did not, in that article, refer to the rulings of the UHJ relevant to Church and State. The UHJ has offered various pieces of guidance on this issue, but so far as I know only one piece of legislation. This has been cited by the Research Department or the Secretariat to NSAs on various occasions. One example is this, to the Canadian NSA:
That seems pretty clear, and it is precisely in line with what I have found in the Bahai Writings and in the interpretations of Shoghi Effendi. The government and the Bahai Administration are two separate things, as Shoghi Effendi says in the piece Baquia quoted (WOB p 66) and as Abdu’l-Baha says in the Will and Testament, and so on. And they are intended to work together, for the good of society. It is an organic unity of the various organs of society that is envisioned, not a church-state or theocracy.
But when reading this ruling regarding local assemblies and local governments, it must be remembered that the UHJ is free to change its rulings. That is why you cannot derive an understanding of the Bahai principles from studying the rulings of the UHJ: the rulings may change. They tell us what is to be done (for now), and often indicate at least part of the reasoning that led the UHJ to that decision. Since we do not know which parts of the decision might be changed by a future UHJ, we cannot be sure about any principles that appear to be implied by the decision. What we can do is use it as a pointer to direct us to the Writings where we will find the principles, which cannot be changed.
Shoghi Effendi wrote:
Don’t let the future tense here dominate the reading, as if he was talking just about the future. Given that the UHJ did not exist at the time it was written, the “nor ever will” is inserted as a parenthetic comment, but I do not read this primarily as a prediction about the future. Shoghi Effendi is discussing the essential — timeless — relationship between the 2 institutions. His statement means that nothing the Guardian writes may be read by us as Bahai law, and nothing the UHJ writes may be read by us as an interpretation of the scripture.
Shoghi Effendi’s dictum here is broken every time a Bahai pulls out a letter from or on behalf of the Guardian and says — “that’s what we must do, that’s the law.” And it is broken every time a Bahai reads a message or letter from the UHJ and says, “so that is the Bahai teachings, the UHJ says so.” But although it is broken daily, all over the Bahai world, the Guardian’s stricture remains. In reality, in truth, in fact, the Guardian has not made a law, and the UHJ has not authoritatively interpreted the teachings — even if all 9 members were to think they had ! Even if 99% of the world Bahai community thought they had. Even if every Bahai were to treat something the Guardian wrote as if it were law. The Guardian and the UHJ would still not have infringed on the domain of the other, because they CAN not do it. The Guardian has not legislated, because he CAN not legislate. The UHJ has not authoritatively interpreted the teachings, because it CAN not do so. That is why the “or ever will” is redundant: it is just a rhetorical underlining of the “Neither can”
This explanation of Shoghi Effendi, about the two spheres of legislation and interpretation, is itself an interpretation of the Will and Testament. So it is part of the Bahai Covenant. In light of this, to turn to the writings of the UHJ for interpretations of Bahai scriptures is, in fact, neglect of the Covenant. (That is, presuming one knows about this aspect of the Covenant - those who do not know about are naturally excused: we all function within the limits of our own understanding). To take something the House of Justice says and treat it as an interpretation of Bahai teachings is to say, in effect - “I know the Covenant makes this argument invalid, but I need to do it to reinforce my argument, so what the heck.” As if the Covenant could be switched off for a moment while we deal with a particular point. And this is my problem with Susan Maneck’s critique of my “Theology of the State” article. She knows very well that an appeal to the writings of the UHJ is not valid, within the framework of Bahai theology, but she does it anyway.
But that is perhaps an over-simplification. When writing Bahai theology, the Covenant is the basic framework. But someone doing a historical or sociological study of the Bahai Faith must not take the Covenant and its provisions as an a priori revealed truth. In history and science, there are no revealed truths. So someone doing a sociological study of the Bahai community can take statements by Bahais and by the UHJ and write about them as “the Bahai teachings”. In fact, for an academic researcher to ignore or critique what is believed in the community, and instead go back to the Writings and say, “this is the real Bahai Faith” would be a really suspect method. At most a scientist can say what Baha’u'llah taught, and what Bahais are teaching, but the scientific method does not give any authority to say what is the “real” teachings. Whereas the Covenant does - it actually requires us to say that what Baha’u'llah taught, and Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi explained, is the real Teachings and anything else is at best a pointer to them (that “anything else” includes my work, btw: at best it will point readers towards the Writings).
Susan Maneck works both as a secular scientist, in the study of religion and history at a college, and as a Bahai theologian, teaching a course in Bahai theology at the Wilmette Institute. In the secular field, the Covenant is just one item of data, whereas in Bahai theology it is the basic framework for doing theology at all, it is as much a “given” as ‘the existence of the earth’ is a given for doing geology. So perhaps when she (selectively) uses statements from the UHJ as if the UHJ had somehow stepped into the Guardian’s shoes, she is not so much neglecting the Covenant as slipping from one field of study into another, applying secular norms in a religious discourse. It is difficult to wear two different hats, when there is an important contradiciton between them.
I have made it very easy for myself, in Church and State, by saying at the outset that I will write as a theologian and not as an “academic scholar of the science of religion” — I’ve subordinated secular methodology to theological method. For example, I don’t argue whether a particular interpretation by Shoghi Effendi, or Abdu’l-Baha, stands up to scrutiny, I take it as a given that these are authoritative interpretations: they are the Bahai Teachings. Theology begins after that, in trying to understand what they mean. And I don’t treat anything that is not an authoritative interpretation as a de facto equivalent, however many people may have said it. There is no room in the Covenant for using either the consensus of the believers, or the writings of the UHJ or its members or the Hands or other revered figures, as indications of what the Bahai teachings are. I observe that distinction strictly - it is my scriptura sola. If I was trying to ride both the secular and the theological horse at the same, I couldn’t do that. I was fortunate in having a supervisor, for my dissertation, who would allow me to write purely from a faith-based point of view, so long as I said clearly that that was what I was doing. And of course, providing the evidence and the arguments were sound. “Doing theology” is not an excuse for presenting personal opinions as facts: it just means that the evidence and arguments have to be from scripture, and not from the practice of the religious community.
Sen
Bird wrote:
“….Pretty interesting on how the stuff backfires on the BF seeing that the Bahai’s are shedding thier innocent blood for the delusion that are “Bahai”…. while the leaders pick out marble for the palace… such irony for sure…”
Bird, would you care develop this please; I dont see how in your understanding, “Baha’is are shedding their innocent blood”
thanks
Sen,
I have not read your book but a couple of things right off the bat that raised some read flags…
First of all you seem like a really deepened Baha’i and I would venture to say have studied the writings more than I have. I am not going to disagree with the content of your book nor you as a person, but only the method in which it came to be published and distributed.
From my experience, anything that is to be distributed among the Baha’is and is giving a green light, supposedly, by the NSA, although has not gone under formal review, regardless of its nature, thesis or dissertation, the author SHOULD make every effort to force a review to make sure that no dissension could arise as a result.
It seems the reaction by the institutions was that “this guy claims to be a Baha’i theologian”. I think that there is an issue here by assuming that this Faith allows for individuals to rise up to the level of Muslim or Christian scholars who have the authority within their Faith to issue edicts or fatwas. I would like to believe that this was not your intention, but your choice of words “…as a Baha’i theologian” certainly brings to mind the associated and related idea of Christian theologian, or Islamic theologian many of which were responsible for different schools of thought that eventually lead to schism. As I am sure you know, early Islam and the Church had lots of competing ideas.
If it was me I would not have published and distributed. This topic is above the heads of many Baha’is and should have been restricted to academic circles or comparative politics studies…Not general distribution.
Lastly, I would have put a big disclaimer in the book stating that this is simply a personal study and in no way shape or form should be considered an authoritative work. Maybe you did this, like I said I have not seen the book.
I meant to delete the “First of all you seem like a really deepened Baha’i and I would venture to say have studied the writings more than I have” stuff. That is just wrong of me to say to anyone.
Ignore that arrogant comment please.
Sen McGlinn wrote:
“As for Susan Maneck’s critique, this does not refer to my book, but to a paper called “A theology of the State” which was published in a Journal that is called _Church and State_. That seems to have led to some confusion.”
But Susan Maneck has also written: “Sen’s book doesn’t just involve what Baha’u'llah taught. He claims to be presenting the *Baha’i Teachings.* That’s a much broader category and one which must take into account *all* the authoritative sources.”
See for example:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3972066750708797426&hl=en
Thanks, Sen, for those clarifications. Very helpful.
Anonymouz,
In the introduction to the book, the very first sentence! Sen says:
May I humbly suggest that before you form an opinion, criticize or cast aspersions you take it upon yourself to investigate the truth independently and individually by reading the book.
You can download the first 30 pages at the link above that Sen provided, or here and you can purchase the book on Amazon or from Kalimat.
Anonymouz wrote :
« From my experience, anything that is to be distributed among the Baha’is and is giving a green light, supposedly, by the NSA, although has not gone under formal review, regardless of its nature, thesis or dissertation, the author SHOULD make every effort to force a review to make sure that no dissension could arise as a result. »
Dear Friend,
Reviewing has not been very present in Europe, and I have had a hard time finding someone to read papers I have published trying to avoid the risk of inadvertently misconstruing the teachings and creating misunderstandings for readers. I have always been careful to say that what I wrote was only my personnal understanding.
As we know, reviewing is a temporary measure, which in time will disappear, just as many structural aspects of our Faith will evolve according to the needs of each day and age. This constant need for adaptation is new in religious history and quite a challenge to Baha’is and non Baha’is We read from Shoghi Effendi (27 Feb 1929 WOB):
“…that the present restrictions imposed on the publication of Baha’i literature will be definitely abolished; …. that the whole machinery of assemblies, of committees and conventions is to be regarded as a means, and not an end in itself; that they will rise or fall according to their capacity to further the interests, to coordinate the activities, to apply the principles, to embody the ideals and execute the purpose of the Baha’i Faith
Interesting paper from Barney Leith re Baha’i review.
anon said:
“… the author SHOULD make every effort to force a review to make sure that no dissension could arise as a result.”
Trying to ‘force’ a decision from your NSA would be an odd way of avoiding dissension! I wrote once, politely, and suggesting possible reviewers. That didn’t lead them to reconsider, and I accepted the NSAs decision.
anon said:
“It seems the reaction by the institutions was that “this guy claims to be a Baha’i theologian”. …”
That is a selective quotation, taking half a statement so it looks as if it could mean something nasty. Here’s what I really wrote:
“I should declare at the outset that my stance is not that of a historian or academic scholar of the science of religion, but of a Bahai theologian, writing from and for a religious community, and I speak as if the reader shares the concerns of that community. As a Bahai theologian, I seek to criticize, clarify, purify and strengthen the ideas of the Bahai community, to enable Bahais to understand their relatively new faith and to see what it can offer the world. The approach is not value-free….”
I am telling the reader that I will approach the topic from a position of Faith, as a committed believer. This is known at the university as a “Faith position,” “theological approach” or “emic approach,” and is contrasted to an objective stance, or a scientific or etic approach. As I understand the UHJ’s guidance regarding Bahai scholarship, they want us to develop and use an emic or theological approach.
I disagree with what you say about theology and theologians. I do not think they, and the diversity of their opinions, have done any harm
to previous religions. Where the problems arise is when theologians or theologies get entangled with authority in the community. It is not a problem that Athanasius and Arius had different opinions, but it became a problem when factions in church politics used theological issues to attack one another, and when the church leadership endorsed and enforced first one view and then the other. Baha’u'llah has separated the three functions of worship, interpretation and authority in the institutions of the Mashriq, the Guardianship and the Houses of Justice; so long as this separation is observed, with neither the houses of justice nor individuals claiming authority for a particular point of view, the schismatic effects can be avoided. No believer, and no believing community, can live without theology. Theology is belief seeking understanding; it is impossible to believe and not ask what it means. So theology is unavoidable, and is a good thing in itself. The trick is to keep it separated from authority.
“This topic is above the heads of many Baha’is and should have been restricted to academic circles or comparative politics studies…Not general distribution.”
The core scriptural texts from Baha’u'llah were selected and translated by Shoghi Effendi, in Gleanings and Epistle to the Son of the Wolf and the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha. The only important one that I’ve added to this, is Abdu’l-Baha’s Sermon on the Art of Governance, which I put into an appendix in _Church and State_. This is a book whose publication and wide distribution was twice authorised by Abdu’l-Baha, and which the Persian friends can download from the library site of the Bahai International Community. In addition, Shoghi Effendi himself wrote several things, in general letters that he authorised for distribution to the world. Baquia has quoted one example. So I really don’t think there’s an issue here with an “untimely topic” or the desirability of keeping certain materials away from the mass of the believers, for scholarly use only.
In any case, who am I to decide whether someone is sufficiently educated to be worthy of reading my dissertation? But again, I think there is no issue here. The book is 400-odd pages and tightly argued with footnotes and evidence and citations all the way. You say you haven’t read it, and I’m not surprised. It’s form is such that it will only be read by the few people with some skills and interest in Bahai studies, who are interested in theology. Now that profile fits Susan Maneck to a T, but so far as I can tell from what she wrote, she hasn’t read the book. So you can guess how many people are actually going to read it.
Anon said:
“Lastly, I would have put a big disclaimer in the book stating that this is simply a personal study and in no way shape or form should be considered an authoritative work. Maybe you did this, like I said I have not seen the book.”
the first sentence begins:
” This book presents my own understanding of the Bahai teachings …”
and below that:
“The reader should be aware, then, that this is only one among the competing discourses within the contemporary western Bahai community. ..”
and on the next page:
“The views offered here are not an authoritative view of the Bahai teachings, nor a definitive statement of my own views on these topics. These are samples from a work in progress, …”
and so on…
Very interesting, Sen. I like the clear way in which you present your arguments. So to clarify, Guardian = interpreter and UHJ = legislator and neither shall overlap. But obviously there was a period of 40 or so years (and the Guardian was only around for about 30 of those years) between the Guardian being appointed and the UHJ coming into existance. We use a lot of the Guardian’s letters (and letters from his secretaries) as the basis for a lot of the Baha’i administration. Would you argue that those should not be considered Baha’i law unless ratified by the UHJ?
Knowing my inquisitive self, I will probably pick up copy. We’ll be in touch.
OMG. What can anyone say? THIS is the mentality of the groupthink Politburo writers on this site. Let’s get some cogent thinking! The world needs much better thinking than this.
Sen wrote:
No believer, and no believing community, can live without theology. Theology is belief seeking understanding; it is impossible to believe and not ask what it means. So theology is unavoidable, and is a good thing in itself. The trick is to keep it separated from authority.
This is a very true statement. UNTIL NOW! In the mindless rote learning Ruhiized NEW THINK BAHA’I FAITH they are trying to ruthlessly indoctrinate “belief without understanding”! read the “To the Collaborators (good WWII Era term!) section of Ruhi Book One. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read it with “the group” in our “first session” in the North Korean collective groupthink cell. “Belief seeking understanding” is the old Baha’i Faith. That is well, so quaintly “liberal” in the NEW SPEAK. Your statement of “it is impossible to believe and not ask what it means” is NOT part of NEW THINK.
Sorry, Sen, your thinking was big over the last 500 years. But not now. Your books are going to be burned if the Baha’is ever come to any real power in the world. The thought police will hook us all up to electrodes.
I read your book so I am keeping an extra lock on my door. It will be (WARNING: to NEW THINK people here - this is an OLD THINK LITERARY REFERNECE) a new “Fahrenheit 451″ for the world. The same old, same old. The entrenched biochemical lizard brain institutionalized in an organization is always where every new thing heads each time out. We are off to a good start.
Shoghi Effendi (27 Feb 1929 WOB) pretty much called it right:
“…that the present restrictions imposed on the publication of Baha’i literature will be definitely abolished; …. that the whole machinery of assemblies, of committees and conventions is to be regarded as a means, and not an end in itself; that they will rise or fall according to their capacity to further the interests, to coordinate the activities, to apply the principles, to embody the ideals and execute the purpose of the Baha’i Faith.
The predict the restrictions will NEVER be abolished. NEVER. Century after century.
As anonymouz just said “This topic is above the heads of many Baha’is and should have been restricted to academic circles or comparative politics studies…Not general distribution.”
These very words will be used by the paternalistic AO for centuries to censor what anyone sees or hears in the ITC Politburo Faith.
Just watch.
The “means” became the “ends” and the rest is history. The Baha’i Faith and the Baha’i message has zero Cosmic spiritual power now. It is empty and dead. Completely controlled and therefore barren and lifeless without inner spirit in individual human hearts and individual creativity and initiative. Anything Baha’u'llah or Abdu’l-Baha ever wrote or said is no longer any part of it.
The Universal House of Justice itself are now the Nine Manifestations of God for this World Age. End of discussion.
That is pretty much it.
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
- Eric Hoffer
Meanwhile, the world will go on trying to make the best of it in this utter insanity caused by “religions” born from the massive male insecurity of the “Mental East”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9jt1OHyagI
One quick comment…
“…a Bahai theologian, writing from and for a religious community…”
I read this as stating that you are writing as a representative of the community to the rest of the World. I can’t put my finger on it, but something about it, between the lines, just sounds like you are really pushing these ideas, whatever they may be, as if they are the only logical conclusions. But that’s just the impression I get when I read what you wrote.
In any case, good luck on your journey.
Craig,
You are a really paranoid dude.
My own understanding (such as it is) is that Baha’is are required (or at least expected) to take as authoritative everything the Baha’i House of Justice expresses: all the members of the House approve the messages that get sent out on their behalf (even as Shoghi Effendi did). Letters written on behalf of the UHJ or Shoghi Effendi do not seem to carry any less weight, authority, or general applicability. The gist of this seems to be that to reject the authority of the UHJ is to reject the authority of Bahá’u’lláh: its pronouncements are taken (or are supposed to be taken) as authoritative by Bahá’ís. I imagine anyone who is perceived to be flagrantly disregarding this (as in actively counseling against it or vocally disagreeing with it) would likely be disenrolled. It would be nice to have Susan Maneck share her opinions about the subject on this forum. She’s BIGS [Ed. Baha’i in good standing], isn’t she?
Andrew,
You hit it pretty well on the head. To the best of my knowledge, when one openly opposes the House of Justice and questions and continuously criticizes, they have essentially called into question the words of Baha’u'llah Himself when He says: God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth’.
Know, my own experience with House of Justice members have always been so nice and reasuring. The actively listen, and are very patient and kind when dealing with so many questions.
Imagine just for one moment what it is like to work in Haifa.
Let me give you an idea. Typical work week is 50-60hrs, often times more, not to mention the continuous take home work that includes reading all the corespondence that comes in from all parts of the World. Each House member has staff and they deal with certain geographic regions, sometimes based on experience, but not always. Frequent collaboration with the counselors and perfectly done research when responses are done, not to mention the dozens of languages, helped by a whole department of eager youth that verify and fact check every thing with the sources and archives at their electronic disposal. Then, think about when they House of Justice is actually in session. I imagine they meet at least once every few days, and their meetings start with probably much prayer, in possibly a few languages. Agendas and decisions are made and set, notes taken, passed to the secretariat to draft and finally circulated again for approval. Now from my understanding, they get a lot of email from not only Baha’is but the rest of the World, probably in the 1000s per day. Some are prayer requests, some are reports and routine correspondences between the National Assemblies and etc. From the people I have talked to, once you are there, you witness the magic at work and see just how wonderfully it all flows and how much sacrifice is happening to come up with guidance and the strategies that are in place. There is also a deep and sincere respect for the ammount of frivilous stuff the House of Justice has to deal with. They are endlessly sympathetic and understanding, even when staff members reach the boiling point of having to deal with the same old same old hot air coming from people like on this blog.
You may ask yourself, when I wrote to the House of Justice, how come they never wrote me back? Simple. The issues that you probably inquired about are all ready available for your to deepen on and they leave it up to the individual to seek and build their own understanding. Can you imagine the kind of emails they get?! I am so thankful and at peace when I remember the Universal House of Justice, The Supreme Institution.