Wednesday, November 23, 2005

November 14 UHJ Letter

This letter has sparked considerable discussion on Baha'i forums for the last week or so, and only now have I had the chance to comment:

To all National Spiritual Assemblies

Dear Bahá’í Friends,
Recently, questions have arisen which have prompted the Universal House of Justice to comment further on matters treated in the compilation “Issues Related to the Study of the Bahá’í Faith”.

The Bahá’í principle calling for investigation of reality encourages an unfettered search for knowledge and truth by whoever wishes to engage in it. When applied to the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, it inevitably gives rise to a wide range of responses. Some, attracted to the Message, embrace the Cause as their own. Some may respond positively to certain precepts or principles and willingly collaborate toward shared aims. Some may find it to be an interesting social phenomenon worthy of study. Still others, content with their own beliefs, may reject its claims. Bahá’ís are taught to be respectful of the views of others, believing that conscience should not be coerced.


The claim that the Baha'i administration does not believe conscience should be coerced is quite simply false; they have repeatedly used the threat of sanctions and loss of membership on those they disapprove of. While, like most Baha'is they are tolerant of the beliefs of non-Baha'is, they are quite ruthless in making sure that Baha'is, especially those who are writers or public in some other way, toe the party line. In other words, freedom of conscience ends when you sign your membership card. The only way to regain that freedom, once you are made a target, is to resign that membership. When they say "freedom of conscience", they mean "freedom to be an enrolled member of the Baha'i Faith or not". They are quite happy for you to leave if you disagree with their interpretation of the Baha'i Writings, even if you are a passionate believer in Baha'u'llah -- and sometimes, they'll make you leave, whether you want to or not.

Upon becoming a Bahá’í, one accepts certain fundamental beliefs; but invariably one’s knowledge of the Teachings is limited and often mixed with personal ideas. Shoghi Effendi explains that “an exact and thorough comprehension of so vast a system, so sublime a revelation, so sacred a trust, is for obvious reasons beyond the reach and ken of our finite minds.” Over time, through study, prayerful reflection, and an effort to live a Bahá’í life, immature ideas yield to a more profound understanding of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation. Service to the Cause plays a particular role in the process, for the meaning of the Text is clarified as one translates insights into effective action. As a matter of principle, individual understanding or interpretation should not be suppressed, but valued for whatever contribution it can make to the discourse of the Bahá’í community. Nor should it, through dogmatic insistence of the individual, be allowed to bring about disputes and arguments among the friends; personal opinion must always be distinguished from the explicit Text and its authoritative interpretation by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi and from the elucidations of the Universal House of Justice on “problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book”.

This sounds very broad and liberal, but virtually *any* new perspective has the potential to cause "contention" because Baha'i conservatives react in such an extreme manner. The April 1999 letter, puts in this category such things as discussing the possibility of women serving on the House, the idea that the Baha'i Writings support the separation of church and state, and the hope that the mashriqu'l-adhkar will help develop a Baha'i community that is less administration-centered. All of these positions are squarely centered in the Baha'i Writings, yet people have been forced out of the Faith, or threatened for holding such "contentious" views.

As far as separating scripture from personal opinion, that's well-nigh impossible because people form differing views about what scripture actually means. What the administration means is that *their* collective and official view must be seen as the objective truth, and all other views are merely personal -- and if there is direct conflict, the other views can be targetted as unacceptable and "contentious". It should be remembered here that the House is, scripturally, given no interpretive power. That authority belonged to the now-defunct Guardianship, in whose name the UHJ now speaks.

In searching for understanding, Bahá’ís naturally acquaint themselves with published materials from a variety of sources. A book written by a disinterested non-Bahá’í scholar about the Faith, even if it reflects certain assumptions and puts forward conclusions acceptable within a given discipline but which are at variance with Bahá’í belief, poses no particular problem for Bahá’ís, who would regard these perceptions as an honest attempt to explore a religious phenomenon as yet little understood generally. Any non-biased effort to make the Faith comprehensible to a thoughtful readership, however inadequate it might appear, would evoke genuine Bahá’í appreciation for the perspective offered and research skill invested in the project. The matter is wholly different, however, when someone intentionally attacks the Faith.

This is an idea that has been repeated in several letters from the 1990s onward -- that it is perfectly o.k. for non-Baha'i scholars to approach the Baha'i Faith from an academic point of view, but it's not o.k. for a Baha'i to do so. There's a certain patronizing attitude here i.e. "It's so nice that you tried, within your inadequate and limited materialistic framework,to understand the Faith."

An inescapable duty devolves upon the friends so to situate themselves in the knowledge of the Teachings as to be able to respond appropriately to such a challenge as it arises and thus uphold the integrity of the Faith. The words of Bahá’u’lláh Himself shed light on the proper attitude to adopt. He warns
the believers “not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men”. “Let them”, He instructs, “rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy. Those men, however, who, in this may, have been led to assail, in their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of God, are to be treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.”

A different type of challenge arises when an individual or group, using the privilege of Bahá’í membership, adopts various means to impose personal views or an ideological agenda on the Bahá’í community.


This is back to the claim made in the April 1999 letter, that certain persons who are believed to be part of "a campaign of internal opposition" are attempting to "impose" their views. It has always baffled me how such "views" are to be "imposed". The world of ideas just doesn't work like that; one puts forth a thesis, and evidence to support it. The reader is free to accept or reject it. But the administration doesn't want that freedom; the fear is that ideas that conflict with the popular perception of Baha'i teaching may, through well-presented academic writings, become accepted within a significant portion of the community. It is, in fact, the administration that is trying to "impose" views; the scholars I know are trying to examine Baha'i history and scripture, and are putting forth their personal insights, and they have no power to "impose" anything. It is the administrators that have the power, and the status, within the community to insist that certain things are "fundamental" and may not be questioned or challenged, without undesirable consequences.

In one recent instance, for example, an individual has declared himself a “Bahá’í theologian, writing from and for a religious community,” whose aim is “to criticize, clarify, purify and strengthen the ideas of the Bahá’í community, to enable Bahá’ís to understand their relatively new Faith and to see what it can offer the world”.


This is presented as kind of a nefarious thing, but in context it is clear that the author is making a distinction between talking within a religious tradition, and coming from a purely academic viewpoint. To announce that one has some bias or vested interest in the subject being examined is a part of academic ethics; it is expected. Not only does the author specifically say that his book represents his personal viewpoint but that "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 . . ." Since Baha'is writing from an academic point of view "as if they were non-Baha'is" have been condemned, and a Baha'i writing "from and for a religious community" is also considered wrong, I'm not sure exactly how Baha'i writers are supposed to write at all -- except to echo what has already been established as orthodoxy. It's sad really that such a strict orthodoxy has arisen so early in the Baha'i Faith's history; we don't even have most of the Writings translated for most people to be able to read them and know what they say -- how, then, can we be so dogmatic about what is allowable and what is not?


Assertions of this kind go far beyond expressions of personal opinion, which any Bahá’í is free to voice. As illustrated, here is a claim that lies well outside the framework of Bahá’í belief and practice. Bahá’u’lláh has liberated human minds by prohibiting within His Faith any caste with ecclesiastical prerogatives that seeks to foist a self-assumed authority upon the thought and behaviour of the mass of believers.

To say that one is a "Baha'i theologian" does not imply "authority" within the religion. But I don't think that's the issue. If an approved-of author, particularly one having an administrative position, had written a book promoting a conservative point of view, and called himself a "Baha'i theologian", I doubt we'd be getting any objections. The problem is that the book in question challenges popular beliefs about the relationship between church and state in the Baha'i Writings. The author is not putting himself within a "caste with ecceslesiatical prerogatives", but challenging the entrenched dogma of the ecclesiastical authorities that already exist, who have made a pro-theocratic viewpoint into an official and unchallengeable teaching of the Baha'i Faith. The author's book, from what I understand, puts forward the thesis that the Baha'i Writings are, in fact, anti-theocratic. I leave it to the reader to decide which perspective is more likely to support a "caste with ecclesiastical prerogatives".

What is striking about this letter is that there seems to no other purpose to it other than to slander this particular author. Virtually everything else in it has been already said in earlier letters.

Indeed, He has prescribed a system that combines democratic practices with the application of knowledge through consultative processes.

And why should Baha'i authors, scholars, and yes, even theologians, not be allowed to participate in that process without fear that they will be accused of trying to undermine the Faith in some way?


The House of Justice is confident that the principles herein presented will enable the friends to benefit from diverse contributions resulting from exploration of the manifold implications of Bahá’u’lláh’s vast Revelation, while remaining impervious to the efforts of those few who, whether in an explicit or veiled manner, attempt to divert the Bahá’í community from essential understandings of the Faith.

O.K., here's the real issue -- that this author's belief that the Baha'i Faith institutions are not destined to evolve into a theocratic state, and that a "Baha'i State", by definition, would keep religion and government separate is considered a diversion from the "true" Baha'i teaching. But what "true" Baha'i teaching is what is contained in Baha'i scriptures, and those that are anti-theocracy argue from scripture, just like those who are pro-theocracy do. There is no longer any individual or institution that is scripturally qualified to impose a uniform interpretation of scripture on the Baha'i community. As in any other debate about ideas, the side with the strongest arguments and most solid evidence wins. But the UHJ has decided that a pro-theocratic stance is one of the "essentials" upon which Baha'is must agree, if they are to remain Baha'is. The question is "Why?" We are, after all, talking about something very speculative here; we are in the realm of millennial beliefs, ideas about what "God's Plan" for the future entails. It is just another instance where the definition of what it is to be a Baha'i is narrowing. Exactly how they think their dreams of the Baha'i Faith even growing enough even to become a significant influence in the world, much less a world theocracy, is going to happen if believing Baha'is are defined out of existence, and friends are named as enemies.

10 comments:

Baquia said...

Karen, Thanks for breaking it down paragraph by paragraph. I didn't want to jeopardize my few remaining brain cells in that endeavor (thanks for taking one for the Gipper!).

You make some important points. Especially the last one that I forgot to mention, that this is all about defending a theocratic stance which has no basis on scripture by attacking a scholar's work which does.

Since they can't do battle on the field of scholarship, they choose to build up a straw man; that he is claiming a special station or status (a taboo within the Faith) and through it, scare Baha'is away from his work. Tragically, it will be effective for most sheeple.

I'm still not sure whether this is a well thought out strategy or simply due to a ginormous amount of incompetence. But does it really matter in the end?

Paul said...

Hi Karen,

Reading your comments about the orthodox view being "pro-theocracy", I'm reminded of a talk I heard some years ago by Wendi Momen at a Baha'i Studies conference I went to.

She was talking about how a more-Baha'i future might come about, and was suggesting that the popular idea that somehow NSAs are going to become national governments was wrong - instead, she had a looser vision of secular government "borrowing" Baha'i ideas, and coming more to resemble a Baha'i ideal of consultation than oppositional party government, and the Baha'is potentially holding an advisory position, perhaps something like the "established" status of the Church of England. This way, you wouldn't have to be a declared Baha'i in order to vote for your countries government.

I thought this was quite an interesting vision - but from what you are saying, if Momen published these views, she'd probably get into trouble for it.

Now I come to think of it, I think I met Sen at that conference, too.

Paul

Karen said...

Hi guys!

Baquia: Don't put your own
commentary
down; you linked this latest thing to a pattern of behavior, which is something I didn't do.

Paul: Theocracy only became orthodoxy in the 1990s. It has been, of course, part of popular Baha'i belief for a very long time, but never has been universal. Old-timers quote 'Abdu'l-Baha' that Baha'is should not accept rulership, even if it is offered to them. Even in the current official position, much is left vague, with many important questions left unanswered: How can Baha'i institutions be the government without either allowing non-Baha'is to elect assemblies, or depriving them of the franchise? How can Baha'i membership be voluntary if, by renouncing it, a person essentially loses the privileges of citizenship? How can you uphold human rights if a person can be deprived of citizenship for not being orthodox enough religiously? What about the status of covenant-breakers, who in the teachings explicitly are due human rights? How can you have a stable state, when those unhappy with government/religion policy can just leave citizenship at any time, turning a "Baha'i majority" country to a "Baha'i minority" one?

Things can get very, very sticky when you mix religion and government. Another thing left very vague is how the transition is to be accomplished. If even the tiniest move is made towards theocracy, such as making the Baha'i Faith a state religion like what they have in England, won't non-Baha'is howl in protest? You'd have to have an overwhelming majority (like 90%, at least) of Baha's in a country in order to accomplish it without massive social disruption. It could also very well provoke persecution of Baha'is in other countries, once they see what the administration's goal is.

Finally, what about the fact that not all Baha'is themselves are going to approve of a government take-over? It could provoke schism in the religion just by attempting to do that, since the attempt could be easily thwarted by protesters resigning from the Haifan faith.

The whole thing is really a can of worms, and hasn't been thought through realistically. It is just a pie-in-the-sky daydream, like the millennial expectations of any religion; they figure it's all going to work out perfectly somehow but they avoid giving thought to exactly how, in the real world.

Steve Marshall said...

Actually, what the Universal House of Justice has said about theocracy comes close to what Wendi Momen has suggested:

"...the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of the Baha'i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha'is reside make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify its constitution or method of government accordingly."
The Universal house of Justice, Department of the secretariat, 27 April 1995

But, as Karen points out, people aren't going to submit to creeping theocracy without a lot of kicking and screaming.

birgitta said...

Hi all !


I have been interesting in the Baha'i faith for a couple of years , but it do frightens me the strict rules , and the role of "The Universal House of Justice".
They talk about this "House" , and the members as "infallible".
How can human beings be "infallible" ? I think there are NO human beings being "infallible" . Only God are infallible . Very few people who have lived have been "infallible". There are a few Stars , but they are counted on one hand :-)

OK ,
But it is a pity that a basic good and wonderful religion like the Baha'i , is mared with this HUMAN issues like "The house" and so on.
First time I read about the Baha'i religion , it stroke me how similar I have been thinkning about religions all my life . Like they are ONE religion from the same source , but have been formed by history and culture .
And that sience and religion says the same thing from different perspective .

The Bahai'u'llah scripture I think is like angelmusic , and good for the soul to read .
OK , but it scares me to join a sect . I like the idea to think for myself . To make the consept of MY God in my head . I like to think freely . I have always been an individual , and how can I think like in a chorus ?
It's not mye style !!

I wonder , is there a growing number of people from Baha'i , and former Baha'is that could make a new religious group , built upon the scripture of Bahai'u'llah , and the basic idea of the Baha'i religion ??

Regards from
Birgitta

Karen said...

Dear Brigitta,

There are great difficulties in creating another Baha'i group. First of all, Baha'is view that as a great sin, and will actually shun schismatics, thinking of them as "spiritually sick" -- a practice which cuts a person off from a lifetime of friends and family. Another problem is that Baha'is are widely spread in very small communities, so it's hard to have enough liberal Baha'is in any one area to sustain an alternative group.

What I do see evolving, though, is informal, localized groups of alienated and unenrolled Baha'is that meet for prayers without formally setting up an alternative organization. Another idea floating around is the creation of a broader sort of spiritual fellowship -- based on an interest in the Baha'i Writings, but not requiring a person to have a Baha'i religious identity.

Whatever the prohibitions against schism, the Baha'i administration has to expect that if they throw people out of the Baha'i Faith for not being orthodox enough, that believers in Baha'u'llah who do not "qualify for membership" are going to create some sort of community for themselves eventually -- even if only in this local, informal way.

birgitta said...

Hi Karen ,


OK , I understand the difficulties with creating another Baha'i group .
But the islamic religion broke up in different groups like shia , sunni , and other offshots .
I thought maybe the Baha'i religion also could split up into different fractions , acording to how you interpret the scripts .

Because you can'nt interpret everything in the scripts the same way . Some take it all very litterly , other see it more in context .
I think that each and every person interpret in his own way . And so it shall be .
Wasen't it Baha'u'llah that thought us to investigate and give name to how we "see" it ?
We are a little church in ourself , and have God inside us .
We need to give HIM name by ourselves . Give name to our inner light . We don't need religious bureacracy . Not in our days when people are scholars .

But of course , we need advice and community .
But in basic , our faith is something between our creator and ourselves .
But I like very much the idea , that also the Baha'i faith teach , that you can go to every scripture that is written in the name of God , and learn from these Holy scriptures .

Of course , you have to read them with your historicglasses on .
But those are the scriptures we have from God , that are written down .

OK , I think I have to continue to be a frelancereligious :-)
But I think religion is so interesting , it is pitty that it's only for the people INSIDE an organized religion .

And , at last
I want to say it is very pity that the Baha'i faith call people who think , "spiritually sick".
That is an old technque for putting people on place .
OK , I think it's manmade . Not from God .

Anonymous said...

If you wish to see many of the ideas shared with the Baha'i Faith and other religions, you may wish to visit www.globalpublic.org. The website provides practical ideas on making real change in the world. It is different from organized religions in that it welcomes different opinions as part of continuous improvement for ideas such as forming a Global Ethic.

Anonymous said...

All Religions are one under the Prophet who appears in every age to guide mankind toward unity. Sectarianism is the opposite of unity by its very meaning. Nowhere in the history of Religion has there been anything close to the clear texts of a Prophet, preventing any possibility of offshoots from the center of the Bahá'í Faith.

Perhaps just as there are luminous people of spiritual brilliance there are contrasting hearts of extreme spiritual darkness, as a void, although they may appear sympathetic. "Shunning" only involves those who are like black holes - to offer another analogy - where even light, itself, cannot resist - due to the escape velocity - being sucked into the void. It is not some superstition but a reality demonstrated over history and known in the physical universe. Some people who are not enrolled say they believe in Bahá'u'lláh. Then why do they not believe in his Teachings on this very subject?

There are people being sympathized with for having been removed from the rolls of the Bahá'í Faith. ntellectuals who do not have faith in the succession to the present Universal House of Justice have to accept the fact that they have removed themselves. The clear Teachings of the Faith down through the Guardian are there for the open mind to read independently. Further, "deeds before words". The Universal House of Justice need not be defended by words if its qualities, spiritual love and power, and its vast accomplishments are studied. Proofs. Show proofs of virtue and truth instead of mere words by those who want to break off into sects. Compare qualities, the history of the Faith till the present. In whose Hands was the Faith left in by the Guardian to carry the Bahá'í Community toward the election of the Universal House of Justice but the very best among us chosen by the Guardian, himself. Everything is relative. Are the detractors endowed with equal qualities? Read not only the words they say but the attitude behind them that speaks loudest.

Free will, according to the Teachings of the Faith ("Some Answered Questions") involves the choice to do right and wrong. It does not involve doing anything you want. If a captain at sea did that instead of knowing and applying the laws of navigation his ship would sink!

Those who have been removed from the Bahá'í rolls no doubt were already attacking or causing grave problems in the Bahá'í Community, at times full of resentment and jealousy of its leadership over many years - as well as working contrary to Bahá'í principles. I am a direct witness to this but not a Bahá'í administrator. All those years are allowed for, even at the risk of causing great harm within the Community to people of less capacity. Immense tolerance is allowed in this Faith - the proofs are there - and if one would truly study the subjects discussed instead of relying upon interpretations of those who are not even members of the Bahá'í Faith they might understand why such people just fade away as the Bahá'í Faith grows in light, beauty and spiritual power.

This is far from a perfect statement. But aren't they all? Again study truly independently. Faith is ultimately between the individual and God.

Nik said...

My understanding is that the writings themselves state that the UHJ is 'infallible' and 'guided by God'. Nowhere does it mention a similar infallability attenuated to the NSA's or LSA's. The sole allowable interpreters of the writings were deemed initially to be Abdu'l Baha
and following him Shoghi Effendi. The UHJ cannot 'interpret' the writings save for areas which have not been clarified in the actual writings or which might arise out of future social contexts and issues.The UHJ acts as a representative of the writings, as they have already been interpreted by the Guardian and Abdu'l Baha...