Trichakra
Member
Fish actually do need bicycles
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?
- Thread starter oldbadger
- Start date
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Sen McGlinn
Member
The words are not from Shoghi Effendi ; it is a statement from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of the United States, on the subject of withdrawing from membership of non-Bahai religious organisations, and uses the characteristic diction of the Secretary, Horace Holley. If you are interested in what he means, I can point to some of Holley's books and essays where he discusses competition. But it's not really relevant, as this is not Bahai teachings and not about theocracy.
This is not one letter, but two, and neither is by Shoghi Effendi. Your first quote is from a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi by an unidentified secretary, November 19, 1939. The second is again by a secetary, April 19, 1941. I believe that the point has already been referred to in this thread, but I will repeat it here. It's a letter from Abdu'l-Baha :
I think I also quoted previously a talk that Abdu'l-Baha gave in Paris, in which he praised Bahai government officials, and believers in general, who hold government office. From these points it must be clear that for Bahais as for Christians, "Render unto Caesar" does not mean that believers cannot vote and be elected, and serve in the civil service and so on. It simply means that the institutions of organised religion stay out of politics, and government does not interfere in religious belief and practice.
A government is a body that enforces laws. Who knew? The answer (from a secretary of the Guardian to an individual) is banal, until one sees what question it is answering. The letter says
The quote it explains is from Abdu'l-Baha, who writes "This House of Justice enacteth the laws and the government enforceth them." (Baha'i World, Volume 6 [1934-36], p. 210)
Although we don't have the question that was asked, it must have been something like, what is the "government" in this passage, since it obviously is not the House of Justice? If you look earlier in this thread (October 4) you will see I outlined why some early Bahais thought that the House of Justice was a government, due in part to footnotes in Dreyfus' 1908 translation of Some Answered Questions. That's likely to be the context of the question: a Bahai who think the House of Justice is a government has seen the translation and is suprised because he or she sees now that Abdu'l-Baha speaks of them as two difference bodies. The secretary's reply is that the government is just a government (a body that enforces laws). The "government" is not some new body within the Bahai community.
In the same posting I've mentioned the Persian terms Abdu'l-Baha uses in several places to refer to "church and state" - tashri` and tanfidh. These are the terms used here. The translation legislative and executive has steered many readers up the wrong alley, thinking that the reference is to the legislature-judiciary-executive which are the 3 powers within a modern civil government. But what Abdu'l-Baha is referring to is organised religions and the institutions of government, aka church and state. He goes on to say, "The legislative body [organised religion] must reinforce the executive [power in society, the civil government], the executive [government] must aid and assist the legislative body [religion] so that through the close union and harmony of these two forces [of religion and politics], the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm and strong, that all the regions of the world may become even as Paradise itself."
This is the only passage I know of in Shoghi Effendi's authentic writings that is open to a theocratic reading. Elsewhere, he emphatically rejects the idea of assemblies becoming governments. The crux in the reading is the last sentence. At least one Bahai author has read it to mean that the Universal House of Justice will exercise the rights of the government of the super-state. But is that the most likely way to read the text? From what we have seen in this thread, it is clear that this would be contrary to the principles found in the Bahai scriptures, and contrary to the thought that Shoghi Effendi had in mind when, in the preceding paragraph, he referred to a letter of Abdu’l-Baha that says the House of Justice does not have political or judicial functions. It would also involve an unexplained contradiction because of the different memberships and electoral methods that are set out in the Bahai scriptures for the Universal House of Justice and the institutions of world government. Beyond this, however, I think that there are reasons in the text itself to believe that Shoghi Effendi did not intend any reference to the Universal House of Justice as a world government when he wrote this passage.
In the first sentence, the Bahai Faith attains the stage of becoming “the State Religion of an independent and Sovereign Power.” What has changed in the second sentence? The Faith has become more widely accepted, and by a number of Sovereign States, and the Universal House of Justice has come into being as the supreme institution of a Bahai Commonwealth (Shoghi Effendi was writing in February 1929, before the Universal House of Justice existed).
Now if Shoghi Effendi was intending to say that the Bahai administrative institutions should become the governments of nations, the decisive change in the role of the Universal House of Justice would come when a National Spiritual Assembly had become the government in one nation. But what is said is that the Bahai Faith will first become the State Religion of one power and then, as more countries become Bahai States, the Universal House of Justice will come to exercise some function that the superstate is obliged to grant or recognise. One might understand this to be the role of government, but it seems more logical, in the light of the progressive structure of the paragraph, to suppose that Shoghi Effendi expected us to understand that it would be the “State Religion.” The Bahai Faith becomes the state religion first of one country, then of more, and finally the Universal House of Justice has rights, duties, and responsibilities in the world superstate because it is the supreme organ of the Bahai Commonwealth. It is not the supreme institution of the commonwealth of nations.
This seems to imply that the Universal House of Justice is envisioned as an established religious institution at a global level, with a constitutional relationship to the separate institutions of the world government. The structure of the last sentence can therefore be clarified, along lines first suggested by Juan Cole on the Talisman9 discussion list:
[.. as the Bahai Faith … is embraced by the majority of the peoples of a number of the Sovereign States, the Universal House of Justice will attain the plenitude of its power and, as the supreme organ of the Bahai Commonwealth, it will exercise all the rights, the duties, and responsibilities that the world’s future superstate will be obliged to grant to it].
This is consistent with Shoghi Effendi’s statement, in 1931, that the Bahais should “be on their guard lest the impression be given to the outside world that the Baha’is are political in their aims and pursuits or interfere in matters that pertain to the political activities of their respective governments.” A year later, in the letter ‘The Golden Age of the Cause of Baha’u’llah,’ Shoghi Effendi writes:
This is very strong: the “much less” construction seems to mean that allowing the Bahai administrative institutions to supersede national governments would be worse than a violation of the constitution (as indeed it would, for it would violate God’s law as well).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Sen McGlinn
Member
Yes, it is a system given by God, but that is not why it is not a theocracy. That would be absurd reasoning, as if coming more directly from God made for less theocracy. The reason the Bahai faith, and Christianity with a few short-lived exceptions is not a theocracy is because of WHAT God decreed: i.e, the separation of church and state (Render unto Caesar). If God had decreed the opposite, the result would be a divinely sanctioned theocracy.
The letter I copied text from
The Universal House of Justice
Department of the Secretariat
27 April 1995
This is an official mouthpiece of the UHJ and is very, very clear on the future aims of the Baha'i Faith. Perhap you can argue that some small errors can occur but it is not reasonable to say that the letter can be so fundamentally wrong in its position and directive! Such a position as yours would justify removal from the mainstream 'Baha'i Faith' which insists on orthodoxy.
But for some reason I see you refusing to face facts for some psychological reason. And I might not be able to change that ever with more posting.
Last edited:
Sen McGlinn
Member
In this case, the mistake is yours; the letter on behalf of the House of Justice says correctly that these words "[do] not comprise words of Shoghi Effendi, although its purport was approved by him. As you yourself have since discovered, it can be found in The Baha'i World, volume VI, on page 199, in a statement [by the NSA of the United States] entitled "concerning Membership in Non-Baha'i Religious Organizations", about which the Guardian's secretary had written on his behalf on 11 December 1935: "The Guardian has carefully read the copy of the statement you had recently prepared concerning non-membership in non-Baha'i religious organizations, and is pleased to realize that your comments and explanations are in full conformity with his views on the subject."
So we have a letter on behalf of the House of Justice, which says (a) that the words attributed to Shoghi Effendi (by Denis MacEoin, in an essay published in New Jerusalems) are not in fact from Shoghi Effendi but (as I had discovered by the time I got this answer), are from the NSA, and (b) that a letter on behalf of the Guardian approved a statement by the NSA on "non-membership in non-Baha'i religious organizations."
That's the facts.
However even though the secretariat's letter is in this case accurate, your comment "... it is not reasonable to say that the letter can be so fundamentally wrong in its position and directive" reveals a misunderstanding of Bahai teachings about the House of Justice. It is indeed perfectly reasonable, in fact doctrinally necessary, to say that the House of Justice itself can be fundamentally wrong in its position. If the House of Justice had a supernatural guarantee of infallibility in understanding and explaining the meaning of Bahai teachings, the Guardianship would be redundant and the sphere of the House of Justice would overlap with that of the Guardianship. But Shoghi Effendi defines the spheres of the Guardianship and the House of Justice as separate, and says that "The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Baha'u'llah has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other."
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 150)
This necessarily means that the House of Justice cannot provide authoritative interpretations of the Bahai teachings and scriptures. And it follows from that, that what it says and "enacts" may not be in line with the spirit and letter of Bahai teachings. Shoghi Effendi again: "Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the permanent head of so august a body ... He cannot override the decision of the majority of his fellow-members, but is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them of any enactment he conscientiously believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances."
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 150)
This is something radically new in religious history, so it's not surprising that the initial uptake has been low. We have a religious community in which the head of the faith -- now the Universal House of Justice -- had no scriptural authority to rule on doctrine and teachings, and itself rejects the idea that it should have such an authority. The House of Justice writes: "The divinely inspired legislation of the House of Justice does not attempt to say what the revealed Word means -- it states what must be done in cases where the revealed Text or its authoritative interpretation is not explicit." (The Universal House of Justice, 1994 Dec 15, Elucidations of the House of Justice)
The problem is the newness of this construction. Bahais and others have often taken existing models of how a religious community works, and plugged "Bahai" into the mould, with the result that they read the words of the House of Justice and of the Guardian as if they were two interchangeable authorities equivalent to the Pope or Patriarch.
It is also worth clarifying that there is a great difference between the letters of the secretariat at the Bahai World Center and those of the House of Justice itself, for the letters issued by the secretariat are supervised by members of the House of Justice in their individual capacities, while the letters issued by the House of Justice result from consultations of the members together. Abdu'l-Baha states "Should that House of Justice decide, either unanimously or by a majority, upon a matter that is not explicitly recorded in the Book, that decision and command will be guarded from error. Now, the members of the House of Justice are not essentially infallible as individuals, but the body of the House of Justice is under the protection and unerring guidance of God"
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions New Translation)
The letters of the secretariat at the Bahai world center, and of the Research department, therefore express the opinions of the individuals concerned and are not "guarded from error." The House of Justice writes:
"Drafts of letters which contain newly formulated policies [ not doctrines !] are consulted upon and approved during a meeting of the House of Justice; correspondence dealing with previously enunciated policies, or with matters of a routine nature, are prepared, as delegated by the House of Justice, by its Secretariat and initialled by at least the majority of the members of the House of Justice before being dispatched. All letters written over the signature of the Department of the Secretariat are authorized by the Universal House of Justice.
As to whether the materials prepared by the Research Department constitute the authoritative word of the Universal House of Justice on a particular subject, as raised in your third question, the House of Justice indicates that such materials, though prepared at its direction, represent the views of that Department.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 Oct 22, Authentication and Authority)
So all these statements written on behalf of the guardian or by a department of the UHJ, and other things we have posted are dramatically wrong is what I hear from you.
The mainstream Baha'i Faith takes great effort to define orthodoxy and authority and is very concerned that schisms don't occur. Basically it is mainstream or covenant breaking. So, five people can not promote 5 different interpretations on major issues.
I am sorry but I do not consider your views to be those of the orthodox Baha'i Faith.
Maybe I should have started with this question: Do you consider yourself a member of the mainstream Baha'i Faith? And do you think the mainstream Baha'i Faith would support your position?
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
And I thought the Bible was hard to follow. If God's plan is this complicated, I don't see how there won't be schisms.
arthra
Baha'i
While it may appear "complicated" in some of the posts above in my view what the Baha'i Faith offers is not all that "complicated".
As believers we receive regular updates on matters concerning the Cause .. We also have our Conventions annually where we elect delegates to our National Convention. Questions about the Cause and various issues are dealt with on a national and international level.
There is a Constitution of the House of Justice and an appeal process that's available to believers.
Other than that we daily pray and read the Writings that have been revealed by Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Briefly, what is the ultimate goal of the Baha'i Faith? How do you expect to have amiable relations with fundamentalist believers of other religions, especially Islam and Christianity who both probably believe that you are a false religion?
arthra
Baha'i
Thanks Didymus for your question... I would say that the ultimate goal of the Faith is to help prepare humanity for the recognition that we are one... that the planet is one home for all of us and that we need to work toward abolishing prejudice and the hatred:
"...blind imitations and hereditary prejudices have invariably become the cause of bitterness and hatred and have filled the world with darkness and violence of war. Therefore we must seek the fundamental truth in order to extricate ourselves from such conditions and then with illumined faces find the pathway to the kingdom of God."
~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 239
One of the ways we can develop amiable relations with the believers of other religions is to participate in inter-faith activities on a local and international level:
"The second Glad-Tidings It is permitted that the peoples and kindreds of the world associate with one another with joy and radiance. O people! Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. Thus hath the day-star of His sanction and authority shone forth above the horizon of the decree of God, the Lord of the worlds."
~ Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 21
Today I attended an Open Mosque Day and met believers and we had a great time! A few years ago we participated in a Thanksgiving service at a Reformed Synagogue in my town. When the Second Baptist Church was vandalized I attended the church as a representative of the Interfaith Council and shared our solidarity with the church. It happened to be the same church my grandfather helped ninety years ago! So we can't accomplish much by just sitting at home we need to meet and consort with people.
Sen McGlinn
Member
The Bahai community does not attempt to enforce uniformity of thought, it is not an "orthodoxy" (correct-speech community), nor is it an orthopraxy, a community where the correct religious behaviour is central and enforced. I think you are putting Bahai in the box of Protestant churches, which are orthodoxies and frequently split of differences of interpretation and doctrine, but you can't expect to understand Bahai if you look through Protestant spectacles. Catholic spectacles would be come somewhat closer, but in the end you have to look at each community as it is, not in terms of a preconception of how religious communities in general function.
To begin at the end, the mainstream Bahai Faith would not support my position, or Arthra's, or any other individual's understanding. It is not an orthodoxy, therefore not in the business of saying what and who is ortho- or other-. It is perfectly possible for five Bahais to have five different ideas about central teachings: you can see this in the Bahai discussion lists all the time. Everyone brings their own perspective, nobody has the right to say that their view is authoritative and other views wrong. Of course some Bahais do say that, but that's taken as a sign of their immaturity and generally ignored.
I identify with and participate in the mainstream Bahai community and support its administration. However the House of Justice considers that I do not meet the requirements for membership, so I am not an enrolled Bahai. Not being enrolled doesn't harm me, as I have never had any ambitions in terms of leadership, so being ineligible for election or selection is just fine by me.
Statements by a department of the UHJ, and those written on behalf of the Guardian, may be incorrect. Indeed, when some Iranian believers pointed out an error in something Abdu'l-Baha had written about an event in Iran, Shoghi Effendi told them they should use the actual facts as known to them, not the account of Abdu'l-Baha who had evidently relied on an incorrect source. Translations produced by the Bahai World Centre may contain mistakes, in fact the ink was barely dry on the first edition of the English Kitab-e Aqdas before a lengthy list of additions and corrections was circulated. I have pointed to translations in Tablets of Baha'u'llah which differ from those of Shoghi Effendi, for the simple reason that the translators did not have access to Shoghi Effendi's translation and did not have his depth of understanding of the Bahai teachings, so they made mistakes, which you could characterise as "dramatically wrong" to quote your phrase: I would say "significant" mistakes.
The Bahai community is a young community in process, it is a diverse fellowship travelling together, as in the Canterbury Tales. In the process each generation looks back at the past and sees some things that the early Bahais did and wrote which we would no longer support. In this evolving process, there are diverse views at any one time. This is as it should be: we are working towards a transcendant ideal in a contingent world, which means that there is always a gap between the actual and the ideal. If it were not so, if we imagined that perfection was achieved and our understanding complete and immutable, the Bahai community would have reached the terminal stage of its life cycle.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Here is the key statement that I see differently than you.
Here is the key statement that I see differently than you.
The Baha'i Faith excludes those who do not promote the orthodox teachings as currently defined by its administrative bodies. That seems to be the fact you have trouble accepting. Your Baha'i 2.0 is not the mainstream Baha'i Faith whose key is 'unity' of believers which does not allow itself to become a heterodoxy.
arthra
Baha'i
For me the issue is accepting the Covenant or not... So at critical junctures in our history such as say around 1921 with the institution of the Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi .. or after the passing of the Guardian in 1957 and the establishment of the Universal House of Justice in 1963 there were those who decided not accept the Institutions provided for in the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha and other signal documents...
Read what Abdul-Baha has written:
The first condition is firmness in the Covenant of God. For the power of the Covenant will protect the Cause of Bahá'u'lláh from the doubts of the people of error. It is the fortified fortress of the Cause of God and the firm pillar of the religion of God. Today no power can conserve the oneness of the Bahá'í world save the Covenant of God; otherwise differences like unto a most great tempest will encompass the Bahá'í world. It is evident that the axis of the oneness of the world of humanity is the power of the Covenant and nothing else. Had the Covenant not come to pass, had it not been revealed from the Supreme Pen and had not the Book of the Covenant, like unto the ray of the Sun of Reality, illuminated the world, the forces of the Cause of God would have been utterly scattered and certain souls who were the prisoners of their own passions and lusts would have taken into their hands an axe, cutting the root of this Blessed Tree. Every person would have pushed forward his own desire and every individual aired his own opinion!
~ Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of the Divine Plan, p. 51
For an historical overview of the Baha'i Faith see:
http://bahai-library.com/encyclopedia_history
I see this as you saying that Baha'is need to follow the positions laid out by the divinely established institutions and to be as one in their positions. This, as is stated above by Abdu'l Baha above, is to 'conserve the oneness of the Baha'i world'.
If I am understanding you correctly, then this is the position of the Baha'i Faith. Differences of opinion on important issues need be directed to the appropriate authority, and all Baha'is of the covenant are to follow their direction. Promoting differing views is not acceptable under the covenant.
Sen McGlinn
Member
Unity is certainly important for Bahais, but when Bahais says "unity" they do not mean everyone the same, but rather everyone working together. Everyone thinking the same is not desirable, and in any case not possible for the Bahai community, because Bahai administrative bodies are not authorised and do not claim to define "orthodox" teachings. You are still treating the Bahai community as if it were Southern Baptists from Iran. In a letter I've already quoted here, the House of Justice writes that "The divinely inspired legislation of the House of Justice does not attempt to say what the revealed Word means -- it states what must be done. (Dec 15, 1994, letter on Elucidations of the House of Justice).
Again, the mainstream Baha'i Faith does not permit heterodox positions on subjects it has addressed. If it did then someone like yourself would be a member in good standing, which you have told us that you are not.
arthra
Baha'i
Actually George I propose that "differences of opinion" are also consulted upon within the Faith.. and this may be a stage that is less known perhaps for those who are unfamiliar with our community... Allow me to cite an example here:
"The purpose is to emphasize the statement that consultation must have for its object the investigation of truth. He who expresses an opinion should not voice it as correct and right but set it forth as a contribution to the consensus of opinion, for the light of reality becomes apparent when two opinions coincide.
A spark is produced when flint and steel come together. Man should weigh his opinions with the utmost serenity, calmness and composure. Before expressing his own views he should carefully consider the views already advanced by others. If he finds that a previously expressed opinion is more true and worthy, he should accept it immediately and not willfully hold to an opinion of his own. By this excellent method he endeavors to arrive at unity and truth. Opposition and division are deplorable. It is better then to have the opinion of a wise, sagacious man; otherwise, contradiction and altercation, in which varied and divergent views are presented, will make it necessary for a judicial body to render decision upon the question.
Even a majority opinion or consensus may be incorrect. A thousand people may hold to one view and be mistaken, whereas one sagacious person may be right. Therefore, true consultation is spiritual conference in the attitude and atmosphere of love. Members must love each other in the spirit of fellowship in order that good results may be forthcoming. Love and fellowship are the foundation."
~ Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 72
And further:
Bahá'u'lláh has established consultation as one of the
fundamental principles of His Faith and has exhorted the
believers to "take counsel together in all matters". He describes
consultation as "the lamp of guidance which leadeth the way"
and as "the bestower of understanding".
~ Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 190
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
So the Baha'is will be united on a world scale, and there will be a world government, but God is not running it? Why is that a good thing? Is it going to be modeled after the Baha'i Faith, yet be separate from it?
We don't know the future but we are told that 'this is the day that will not be followed by night'.
This means that in this Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, man will continue to have infallible guidance after Baha'u'llah's death.
The world has never had infallible guidance once a Prophet has passed away. The Church and the Caliphate and all other Faiths fell into sectarian disputes regarding successorship soon after their Prophet died.
But with the Baha'i Faith we are assured of infallible guidance through the Universal House of Justice up until the next Manifestation of God appears.
Humanity therefore has infallible guidance available to it should it seek it. The infallible guidance would be only upon subjects the Baha'i Faith and its teachings cover but they are in the thousands.
For instance. It is envisaged that in the future, governments, seeing the unity of the Baha'i model, will seek the advice of the Universal House of Justice upon subjects maybe like how to deal with racism or rape or violence or drug addiction etc or a number of other of the thousands of topics the Baha'i Teachings deal with and that advice given will be infallible.
The governments, after seeking counsel may decide to adopt or not adopt the recommendations of the House of Justice but if they do, it is my belief that their affairs will change for the better because the advice of the House is guided by both Baha'u'llah and the Bab.
Humanity is set to evolve into a nobler more spiritual form of existence and I use the word evolve as it takes time and once we have rediscovered our spiritual selves then we will be a united humanity with infallible guidance always available to us through the Universal House of Justice should we seek it.
This is the first time in human history that after a Prophets death, humanity has had infallible guidance available to it.
There is no night following this Day. Over the next decades and centuries humanity will grow from dark to light because we have the Universal House of Justice. More and more governments will turn to it and humanity's affairs will reach the stage of a golden age of peace and a world civilization never before witnessed.
There is everything to look forward to with time and the Universal House of Justice. They are the only body on earth that cannot be corrupted. They are promised to be free from error at least until the next Manifestation comes.