About … dissenrolment
As I noted on the ‘about’ page of this blog, in November 2005 I was removed from the membership rolls of the Bahai Community following a decision of the Universal House of Justice. The reasons for my dis-enrollment and the purpose served by dis-enrollment are not at all clear to me, so I am not in a position to say much about the rights and wrongs of it. However other people, who know as little about it as I do, have been quite ready to explain the UHJ’s reasons. I think it is extremely unlikely that the UHJ has ever given anyone any information on the question, since the Guardian wrote:
Regarding the very delicate and complex question of ascertaining the qualifications of a true believer, I cannot in this connection emphasize too strongly the supreme necessity for the exercise of the utmost discretion, caution and tact, whether it be in deciding for ourselves as to who may be regarded as a true believer or in disclosing to the outside world such considerations as may serve as a basis for such a decision.
(Bahai Administration, p. 90)
I don’t wish to judge the UHJ’s decision, or defend myself; I present a few documents here to allow people to judge whether the speculations about the reasons that others have proposed have any value.
The explanations proposed are generally of one of two types:
- either I was dis-enrolled for the opinions I hold (and the pundits vary as to whether the offending opinions are on the meaning of infallibility in Bahai theology, the role of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar in the Bahai community, the Bahai teachings on the separation of church and state or something else), or
- I was dis-enrolled as a punishment (usually called a “sanction” in Bahai parlance), for some breach of Bahai law. Here various pundits have claimed I have advocated bigamy, done something unnamed in Tehran on a visit there a few years ago, breached the publication review process, claimed a position of authority in the community, challenged the Universal House of Justice, and so forth.
As for the first, Daniella Pinna wrote a long letter to the UHJ in 2006. Her letter supposes that my expulsion related to the research I reported on in my book Church and State. The Universal House of Justice in its reply says “Concerns with Mr. McGlinn’s actions have nothing to do with his treatment of topics such as church and state…” and “Every individual has the right to hold and express personal views” while also saying [in my paraphrase] that one who professes or propagates personal interpretations that violate Baha’u’llah’s criteria for understanding and practicing His Faith, removes himself from the Faith. That leaves open the possibility that I was dis-enrolled for some opinion that I have, or that the UHJ thinks I have, but not on “topics such as church and state.” [But In 2008 I got a copy of a UHJ letter to an individual about my disenrollment, dated 2006, which states that it was not because of my "personal understanding."] I have no further information than that.
As for the second, the variety of sins attributed to me should be a warning that those who pose as explainers of the UHJ’s decision do not have any facts. Rather, on the supposition that dis-enrollment is a sanction for wrong-doing, they have tried to imagine a suitably serious offense for me. But so far as I know, the Universal House of Justice has not used the word “sanction” with respect to dis-enrollment, in my case or any other, and has not applied the procedures which are involved before any sanction, such as the removal of voting rights, is applied in the Bahai community. Nor have they indicated any action that those dis-enrolled could take if they wish to be re-enrolled in the community.
If we disregard explanations which are merely imaginative, we are left with what the Universal House of Justice itself has said, in its letter of 14 November 2005. That indicates that the decision was based wholly or primarily on some words in the Foreword to Church and State, which the UHJ has construed as a claim to personal authority. Since the UHJ itself has widely distributed that letter, I suppose that they will not object if people read the letter, and the Foreword to Church and State, for themselves and form their own opinion about the reasons for dis-enrollment and what purposes it may serve in the Bahai community. [But note that a subsequent letter has indicated that my disenrollment was not because of "a single statement drawn out of context from the preface of his book" -- despite the apparent meaning of the November 2005 letter. ]
I’ve also posted my NSA’s brief letter informing me that I had been removed from the membership rolls, and on another page, some applications to be re-enrolled and the responses to them.
In 2008, there was a Q&A session on Bahai Rants, in which I responded to questions about Church and State. I’ve edited that up as one consecutive page here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Short link: http://wp.me/PcgF5-11a
Super Mayn said
“of a Bahai theologian, writing from and for a religious community”
“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. ”
These sentences make me feel sick in my stomach. Why do you dodge around the issue in this blog post instead of confirming the glaringly obvious error from the outset?
Sen said
Perhaps you could tell us what the obvious error is, and I can fix it; simply emoting takes us nowhere. But thanks for your comment anyway – it illustrates to everyone one kind of gut reaction which is part of the whole picture. I’ve heard something like that reaction from various people — it came as a total surprise to me, and anything you can add about why you feel this way would help.
I have in fact expanded on the sentences you quote, in the email archive here and here and here and probably more – but that will do for a start. You might also read the context of the words you quote, in the Foreword to Church and State on this blog.
Sen said
Further to Super Mayn: the last paragraph in the posting
“What is theology, and what’s it good for ?” on this blog
clarifies the words you quoted, as follows:
robert van der hope said
I have recently come across your blog site as you will have noticed. Your erudition and wit is admirable. I feel the reason for your “disenrollment” may well be because of a wrongly perceived understanding by the individual members of the UHJ that you were in some unexplainable way “incalcitrant” – to use an expression of a former Australian Prime Minister (also a wit). We must remember always that these nine men are just that – nine men like any other Baha’i Faith members. Their judgement as the Institution of the UHJ I find usually to be wise and well-guided, as one would expect. There are instances such as yours, where they appear perplexed, and act therefore with what you (not I) might describe as “ecclesiastic caution.”. Some academics like yourself have proceded beyond their organizational capacity to cope. Udo Schaeffer, for one, does not seem to have done this. What the guidelines are we do not know. This makes you no less important than Udo, and no less authoritative where your research skills match international peer reviewed guidelines. I am saying nothing you do not already know, just confirming it. In one sense you are most fortunate to have been given (by God Himself in fact) the right to continue, – un-interrupted by BAHA’I PEER REVIEW, – to explaining and elucidating the Faith through scholarly examination of known and verifiable realities and real certifiable facts and historical documents. Having some knowledge of Eastern culture and language is a huge advantage in this respect. You are thus doing the Faith a great service, and can address also the wider community with sincerity of view minus constrictions of institutional obedience. This is a great blessing. Perhaps one day you will be “Re-enrolled”, so make the most of your current position in fairness, acuity and pure honesty. In the process you are meeting sometimes rebellious spirits who are having their own struggles with truth and reality. No doubt you will bear with them in patience and kind consideration. I myself have witnessed, indeed been embroiled in an extraordinary and reprehensible period of disunity engendered by slander and personal attack in my own community, and am one of the few left standing after the smoke finally cleared. The UHJ to its credit finally moved in to re-establish true harmony amongst the Friends. Too little too late, but a few of the “Troops” survived. I now have much less administrative work to do, our numbers having been decimated. Shoghi Effendi warned against this. I think,in defence of the NSA and UHJ, it is rather harder to deal with ego driven rich westerners than socially group dependent Eastern or Asian communities, more used to accepting group cohesion and values (read conformity). Not necessarily better than the western individualism, but certainly less troublesome. Congratulations on your work and your blog, you are of great value to the Cause.
Pukirahe said
My voting rights have been taken away in 1972, and I knew my mistakes for acting worngly. I was repenting and asking for forgiveness, and my standing has been reinstated in 1975 by the Universal House of Justice.
I wish that the sincere Baha’is,especially the famous Baha’is, should think of their own faults to get back into the community under the guidance of the Universal House of Justice. I believe that the Universal House of Justice has no reason or freedom to act unjustly against any individuals on earth.
People who create any doubts about the infallibility of the Universal House of Justice may lead other sick friends into disobedience, which is not good at all for the unity in the Faith, then unity of the whole human race. Perhaps, the purpose of man’s creation is not to preserving self, but to sacrifying it for his selfless existence under the sole Existence of God.
mashed potato said
Dear Sen,
Have you asked the House or has the House told you what you need to do in order to get re-enrolled in the Baha’i community?
Sen said
Rather than ask “why?” which might sound like questioning the decision, I have applied to be re-enrolled. That gives the UHJ the opportunity to tell me what I must do to get re-enrolled, if they wish. In one letter to the UHJ I did ask “if there is anything I can do to speed the process.” I’ve put three of my requests for enrollment on a separate page.
mashed potato said
I am not telling you to ask “why” but “what” exactly you need to do in order to get re-enrolled. You have not asked this question to the Universal House of Justice. You have asked it to the NSA of Holland. Since the Universal House of Justice disenrolled you I think it would be appropriate to ask this question to them.
Sen said
Formally, it was the NSA that disenrolled me, since they are the custodians of the membership rolls here. But I doubt that it makes any difference who I address the letters too. The 2010 one is addressed to the UHJ with a copy to the NSA, and at other times I’ve addressed letters to the ITC. I’m sure the message gets through to anyone in the Administration who wants to know, whoever I address my letters to.
The first step to getting re-enrolled is obvious: apply for enrollment. I’ve done that, and I’m still waiting for a reply to the most recent application. If there’s a procedure required or something else I have to do, someone will let me know.
Abbas Effendi said
The silence on this case by the [UHJ ~edited] is seriously deafening! The least they could do is tell you thy mistake, so ye may know how to fix it, of which you would need to know what to fix to begin with! The NSAs and Counselors who obey orders like [~edited] need to learn and re learn one of the divine principals of the faith which is INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH. Now if it is as stated in comments the actions of individuals members of the UHJ, then my dears the UHJ is to work as ONE Body NOT as individual men (and someday women apparently)if it is found that any member of the UHJ acted in the name of the UHJ, then it is that or those members who should be removed as members of the Baha’i faith, as they are acting against Baha’i teachings.
I for one, prefer my adversaries, judges, bodies of law, enemies whoever to attack me to my face and stab me in the chest, then those who stab in the back, accuse in the shadows, and then act as if nothing happened so no one will have anything to even question about, because no one would have heard of anything. You folks tell me which of these two tactics the UHJ is using and which one “rhythms” with cowards.
Sen said
The last time I applied to be re-enrolled, in March 2010, I also suggested that the UHJ might clarify the relationship between being on the membership rolls, and being a Bahai, and also the distinction between the removal of voting rights, which is a sanction for breaking a Bahai law, and disenrollment, which appears to be something quite different. The analogy I have used is that being on the membership rolls is meant to be like voluntary membership of an association, which is a free choice on both sides. There seem to be no procedures or reason required for taking away membership or not giving it in the first place. No explanation is given. It’s like the coach deciding who doesn’t make the cut. That may not be the UHJ’s thinking: if they answer my questions about it I will be sure to put the answer on my blog.
Gerry said
Sen,
The lack of explanation by the Baha’i Faith’s administration exactly why you were unenrolled, the apparent fact you were not invited to consult with any Baha’i institution prior to their verdict, and the fact that the decison was not carried out in accord in a manner that Shoghi Effendi required, namely that you should have been “repeatedly warned” that whatever you were doing could lead to expulsion, indicate a religious attitude that’s off-track from the Faith’s original intent.
True, they did no throw you into a prison and violate your human rights in that extreme sense, but they did not afford you the necessities of human fairness they themselves complain their beleaguered co-religionists in Iran are often not granted. No hearing was afforded you; no opportunity for you to express yourself whatsover prior to their verdict. No evidence provided. Nor were you provided a clear idea of the duration of your disenrollment, if any, and what you must do to regain membership and if that is ever possible.
So why are you seeking any relationship with such a religious organization? What does the Baha’i Faith offer that is different from Islam when it comes to judicial process? Why would any fairminded person seek to promote such a faith?
Sen said
There is no requirement that those who are disenrolled should be “warned,” or that they should be required to do something or not do something, on pain of being disenrolled. Those processes relate to the deprivation of voting rights, which is something quite different: it is a sanction for behaviour. For example, a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi says:
and the Universal House of Justice writes:
In my case, and so far as I know the other Bahais who have been disenrolled, there has never been any suggestion of wrong-doing, let alone flagrant offences. Since bad behaviour is not involved, naturally there is also no warning about bad behaviour.
In my most recent re-enrollment letter, I asked also “for some clarification about the meaning of enrollment and disenrollment. I ask this for myself, and also to assist some the friends who feel some uncertainty on this score,” and said “some clarification of the thinking of the Universal House of Justice would be helpful for the whole community, especially if disenrollment is intended to be a life-time situation, meaning that disenrolled Bahais will be a permanent part of the Bahai scene.”
Because I have invited the International Teaching Centre (that is, Counsellors) to approach me with any concerns they might have, and have had no reply at all, I surmise that there is no “term,” for disenrollment – it is probably for life. If it was reversible through some action or statement on my part, they would no doubt have told me what this is, or at least responded in some way to indicate that the channel of communication is open. Non-response presumably means they see no point in talking about something that cannot be changed. But the Universal House of Justice might nevertheless provide clarification to the whole community of their thinking on the meaning of enrollment and disenrollment. If I hear about it, I will be sure to put it on a page of this blog, with a link from the page “about disenrollment.”
I apply for enrollment, because I am a Bahai, and I am sure that Abdu’l-Baha would want Bahais who are living in a country where there is a Bahai Administration to support and contribute to it. Each enrollment application also gives the House of Justice an opportunity to explain the reasons for expulsion, recheck the facts on which it based its decision, and perhaps say what purpose it hopes will be served by having unenrolled Bahais. That purpose might have some relation to the concept of a “community of interest” – that is, a vaguer definition of the boundaries of the Bahai community that recognises that many people will in some sense identify with the Bahai community without having or necessarily seeking membership rights. Perhaps, in their vision, membership will become something that entails quite intense involvement in activities and strict adherence to Bahai law, and another kind of Bahai identity has to be developed for those whose character, wishes or circumstances don’t suit that, at least for a period in their lives, who are therefore better to be unenrolled Bahais. In a sect (sociologically speaking), all believers are active members, whereas a religion exists in society as a cadre of active members, usually tracked on membership rolls of some sort, and a penumbra of believers who are not so actively involved and may not be known to the organisation. Perhaps the UHJ’s purpose is to foster such a development, and its judgment is that I am one of those whose characters makes them best suited to the unenrolled Bahai status. And I suppose they are quite right. I’ve been a Bahai for almost 40 years, so there’s been plenty of time for my basic character to be known to the UHJ. I am however sorry that the fact of there being disenrolled Bahais, without an explanation of the thinking behind this, is a cause of concern for quite a number of Bahais.
I promote the Bahai Faith because I believe in it, and because I believe that religion is an ineradicable part of society, and can do great good or great evil, according to its quality, that religion as a whole needs to be renewed periodically, that this renewal occurs most radically and at long intervals through the injection of a new religion into the global religious system, and that this has in fact occurred, in the form of the Babi and Bahai twin revelations. Much as I am drawn to both Islam and Christianity, for their truths and for the richness of their heritage, I find the excitement of a pioneer’s role in the early centuries of a Faith’s development more attractive. To each his own.
~ Sen
xyz said
“I am however sorry that the fact of there being disenrolled Bahais, without an explanation of the thinking behind this, is a cause of concern for quite a number of Bahais.”
The Universal House of Justice has given explanation for your disenrollment in their letter dated 14 Nov. 2005:
“…here is a claim that lies well outside the framework of Bahá’í belief and practice.”
It is your belief that is the cause of your disenrollment. Your belief that you are 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”.
No Baha’i has the power to do what you claim here.
For example an individual who believes that Baha’u'llah was God Himself or the final Manifestation of God puts himself outside the framework of Baha’i belief and should be disenrolled if he insists on his beliefs.
Sen said
I agree that this seemed perfectly clear at the time – the Universal House of Justice thought that I had written what it quoted (a misquote, because out of context), thought that a theologian was somebody with authority in the community (confusing theology with priesthood, which is something different), and expelled me. I’ve quoted the whole sentence and context on this site in ‘Disenrollment, Tarikh 2006.’ However the Universal House of Justice must fairly soon have realised that what I wrote really said something quite different, and a later letter from the UHJ (14 May 2006) said, “It has nothing to do with a believer’s expressing a personal understanding, or even holding an erroneous perspective, about some aspect of the Teachings. Nor was the action taken on the basis of a single statement drawn out of context from the preface of his book.” That sounds to me as if they are both recognising that what they had quoted from me was taken out of context, and are saying that the theologian thing was not the basic reason anyway. Whatever theory you may have about the reasons in my case, the larger question is what purpose the UHJ has in mind, in creating unenrolled Bahais?
I believe all Bahais have the capacity to criticize, clarify, purify and strengthen the ideas of the community: are we uniquely doomed to be a religious community with uncritical, muddy, weak ideas mixed with various baggage brought in from other backgrounds, while other religious communities strengthen their intellect life? How are we to correlate our ideas with those of society, if we are not clear what our ideas are, and what they are based on?
I’ve defended theology as an important branch of Bahai scholarship on this blog in several places:
‘Church and State: Q&A on Bahai Rants‘
‘Theology a defence‘
‘Theologians, the learned and the wise‘
Theology – 2005-12-03
Theology 2005-10-17
Theology 2005-10-21
Theology 2006-02-13
Theology 2007-01-01
Theology 2008-06-03
Theology 2009-10-00
I do not claim that Baha’u'llah was God himself, or the final Manifestation of God. Various absurd ideas and nasty acts have been imputed to me (see ‘A list of slanders‘ on this site): I don’t generally respond to such claims when they are made, for they say more about the mentality of the speaker than about me, but I am prepared to answer questions if a sincere person thinks there’s any possibility of substance to such accusations.
xyz said
I never said that you claim that Baha’u'llah was God Himself or final Manifestation of God. The example I have given is an imaginary case of an individual who can be disenrolled for his beliefs and not because of his violation of a Baha’i law. I hope this is clear as I donot want to commit slander.
xyz said
“I believe all Bahais have the capacity to criticize, clarify, purify and strengthen the ideas of the community…”
Obviously you disagree with the Universal House of Justice on this matter. Since you accept the Universal House of Justice as the legitimate Head of the Baha’i Faith don’t you think you should change your thinking to make it conform with the views of the Universal House of Justice?
robert van der hope said
Sen, you are doing a good job. For the Baha’i seeking an increase of knowledge your site is valuable We are all individuals with the right to our views. As you say, the UHJ has also the right to decide our individual roles in the service of Baha’u'llah. Your contribution is a valuable one. By the way the word I used previously suggesting the UHJ viewpoint (suggesting only because I have no way of verifying it) -was “recalcitrant” – meaning “objecting to restraint”, used by former Prime Minister Paul Keating, not “incalcitrant” (an unintentionally invented word of mine which I hereby disclaim). I guess some of us get carried away by our brilliance and our ego at times – myself included. You do not need to take any further steps regarding the UHJ. If God so wills, you will receive further elucidation from them.
xyz said
You have made two points: the House confused theology with priesthood and the House took your statement out of context.
I cannot speak for the House and therefore what follows is my personal opinion.
I don’t think the House has any issue with a Baha’i calling himself a “Baha’i theologian”. The objectionable issue is a Baha’i claiming to write from and for a Baha’i community.
There is no context in which a Baha’i can claim 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”. You cannot justify this claim by saying it applies in a particular context because it applies in no context.
Sen said
I don’t see what is objectionable about writing from and for the Bahai community. An etic approach takes an objective, disinterested standpoint, an emic approach — that is, writing from the community — takes a committed approach, like the biologist who studies a rare species to save it from extinction, while a value-free approach would instead study it to document the process of extinction. The standards of evidence and argument are no lower for an emic approach, the difference is in the commitment of the writer. I am a committed Bahai, and I hope the Bahai Faith fulfills the potential I see in it, so I write “from” the Bahai community. Bahai belief and participation in the community is where I am coming from.
I also write for the Bahai community. If other people read it, that’s welcome, but the audience I have in mind, especially on this blog, is the Bahai community. Naturally a dissertation is somewhat different, I had to straddle two audiences, the academics and the Bahais, but the Bahai community is definitely my priority.
I think I’ve explained adequately why it’s a good thing to criticise, purify, clarify and strenthen our ideas, and you’ve given no indication of what you think is objectionable. Is it simply that you don’t like intellectual endeavour in general?
Sen said
So far as I know, the House of Justice has not said that the Bahais are not able to, or are not allowed to, criticize, clarify, purify and strengthen the ideas of the community. The only statements I know of from them are these:
So far as I know, the Universal House of Justice does not ask the Bahais to change their thinking to conform with its own. I think you are applying to the Bahai Faith a model of religious authority more appropriate to the Vatican. In the Bahai Faith, the current head of the community, the Universal House of Justice, does not have doctrinal authority, for we have a “division of powers”, or rather spheres. The Master and Shoghi Effendi had doctrinal authority, the House of Justice has legislative authority, and the position of Head of the Faith, whose purpose is to ensure unity of action, is a hat worn successively by Baha’u'llah, Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice, and also delegated at times to the custodians (the Hands of the Cause elected by the Hands in the interregnum), and to Bahiyyih Khanum. Head of the Faith is therefore a hat that can be worn by various people (properly appointed as such), and does not in itself confer any doctrinal authority, or authority to make religious law: it is an authority simply in terms of having to be obeyed in our actions.
Sen said
Yes, I understand that it was a hypothetical. There have been a lot of hypotheses about what I supposedly believe, and why it is wrong; also about what I may have done. I have however heard of some Bahais who claimed that Baha’u'llah was God himself, and the way I heard the story, they were not disenrolled. Indeed the same case came up in the lifetime of Baha’u'llah, and again he did not make an issue of it, as long as it did not cause disunity. Protestant churches in particular, but Christian churches in general, define their memberships by ortho-doxy (right speaking), that is, affirming the correct doctrines. But this is not the only way of establishing and maintaining a religious community. Judaism for example centres on ortho-praxy (right religious practices), with doctrine taking second place. In my view, the Bahai Faith is neither an orthodoxy nor orthopraxy, but a community that has in common, that it derives its inspiration from the persons of Baha’u'llah and Abdu’l-Baha (in different senses), and turns to the Bahai scriptures for spiritual guidance and maintains its unity by obedience to the Head of the Faith. The religious practices are largely left to the individual, both as to how to best perform them (what does bend down with your hands on your knees mean), and how diligently to perform them. Religious doctrine is rendered something of a moot point, for our doctrine is our scripture, and we believe that individuals’ various interpretations are not evidence of error, but evidence of their different capacities and inclinations:
It might be objected that the Assemblies, in determining registration, use a doctrinal test that looks like a creed:
However in practice, we do not exclude new believers who are not entirely clear on these points, and the last of these is not a matter of belief, but of self-identification with the Bahai community. The Assemblies are not given any way of determining precisely what someone’s beliefs are, and are not themselves an authority on Bahai belief (that’s the Guardian’s role). Assembly members don’t have to pass a doctrinal test before serving, in the way that Anglican clergy have to assent to the 39 articles for ordination. And the ‘creed’ asks for recognition “the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and the True Exemplar,” but does not specify what these stations are, except by the names that are chosen for them. So I understand these criteria rather as an indication of how the Assemblies may evaluate the person’s level of commitment, rather than test their doctrinal orthodoxy.
Given sufficient commitment, and aided by participation in the community and exposure to other people’s insights, every Bahai will grow and change in understanding. Therefore an Assembly may quite properly admit somebody who has, for example, never heard of the Bab, or confuses the Exemplar and the Guardian, or is not familiar with the rather complex form of Bahai Administration today (as compared to the time of Shoghi Effendi).
xyz said
“In the Bahai Faith, the current head of the community, the Universal House of Justice, does not have doctrinal authority…”
It was the Guardian that established the doctrine that individual interpretations of the scriptures are personal views and lacks authority. The House is simply defending this doctrine by not allowing an individual to impose his personal interpretations on the Baha’i community. So the House is not establishing a new doctrine but defending an established doctrine.
I again go back to the imaginary case I have given before. It was the Guardian who established the doctrine that Baha’u'llah was not God or the final Manifestation of God. If a Baha’i believes the opposite is true and gets disenrolled for it he cannot say the House is making a new doctrine. Here again the House is defending a doctrine established by the Guradian and not making a new doctrine.
Sen said
It’s a hypothetical case isn’t it, since there’s no-one who has been disenrolled for believing the Baha’u'llah is God, or the final Manifestation. Nor has the UHJ given such doctrinal reasons for any of the few cases in which it has disenrolled people. Perhaps one day the UHJ will start to do this, and yes, that would be defending a doctrine established by the Guardian, not making doctrine. But I will leave the future to take care of itself. I don’t think such hypothetical possibilities affect my argument that the Bahai Faith is not an orthodoxy, or an orthopraxy, but rather a new kind of religious community defined by orientation to the person of Baha’u'llah, rather than by doctrinal or liturgical conformity.
Gerry said
Sen stated April 11, 2011 at 11:20 am
” …..Whatever theory you may have about the reasons in my case, the larger question is what purpose the UHJ has in mind, in creating unenrolled Bahais?”
But this assumes that you are still considered to be a Baha’i by the Baha’i community and it’s Administrators.
Since you have been “unenrolled”, and this apparently means the Universal House of Justice no longer considers you to meet the requirements of being a Baha’i…. and since all faithful Baha’is believe what they have decided is “infallible”….. therefore you are not a Baha’i in any way or form so far as Baha’is are concerned.
So, perhaps as long as you continue to claim to be a Baha’i, when they consider you not to be one, it is something they will hold against you, preventing their reconsideration irregardless of other amends they expect from you which they have not fully explained to your satisfaction.
Sen said
So you think I have to declare that I do not believe in Baha’u'llah, in order to be considered for enrollment? But according to Bahai teachings, we are not to deny our beliefs, even on pain on death, although we should certainly express them in ways that do not cause opposition (this distinguishes Bahai hikmat/wisdom from Shiah taqiyyah/dissimulation of Faith). I don’t think it is at all plausible that I would ever be re-admitted, if I did as you suggest.
As noted in a previous comment, Shoghi Effendi urged “the utmost discretion, caution and tact, …in disclosing to the outside world such considerations as may serve as a basis for such a decision [regarding enrollment].” It’s therefore very unlikely that the UHJ would state its reasoning, or that any member privy to that reasoning would allow even a hint of it to leak out. That gives free scope for any and all speculations.
Larry Rowe said
That the UHJ had their reasons for disenrolling you Sen is evident. It is the view of those Baha’i powers that be that their word-judgement is the final word, a word-judgement not in any need of explanation; at least this is how it was explained to me by Mosen Enyat some years before your disenrollment. What he also made clear to me was that the UHJ has drawn a line. On one side of that imaginary line are all those Baha’i dissidents, ‘apostates’, such as Juan Cole, Alison Marshall, Michael McKenny, as well as any and all Baha’is who ‘side’ with them. On the other side of that imaginary line of course are they, the divinely infallible, and all those Baha’is who in no way question their absolute, infallible, authority.
This drawing of lines is quite obviously contrary to Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching that we should draw no such lines and see no enemies, but of course Abdu’l-Baha’ himself failed to live by this teaching so it comes as little surprise that today the UHJ fails to live by it as well. Baha’u'llah’s supposed removal of such backward religious division of humanity: the “pure tree” from the “evil tree”, the “faithful” from the “irreligious”*, is a wonderful ideal, yet it is quite apparent that since Baha’u'llah, Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and today the UHJ all failed/fail to live by this laudable precept that this precept has always been for Baha’is simply mouthing of the words.
* In this way His Holiness Bahá’u'lláh expressed the oneness of humankind whereas in all religious teachings of the past, the human world has been represented as divided into two parts, one known as the people of the Book of God or the pure tree and the other the people of infidelity and error or the evil tree.
… His Holiness Bahá’u'lláh removed this …
(Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith – Abdu’l-Baha Section, p. 246)
Why has the Baha’i Faith done little or nothing to promote this “oneness of humanity”? Because for Baha’is this oneness has always been and continues to be conditional when in truth such oneness is unconditional.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
Sen said
I think you are failing to distinguish two quite different things, and therefore think that Abdu’l-Baha was inconsistent. One is the teaching of some religions, at some times, that all people outside their own community are lesser, or are unclean, or a danger in some other way, simply by virtue of not being in the ‘chosen’ community. These are collective judgements, regardless of individual merit. For example, a Zoroastrian however saintly was regarded as possessing a ritual uncleanliness (najes) by Iranian Shiah Muslims, and since this quality was supposed to be transmitted by moisture, Zoroastrians were not permitted in the market places when it rained.
These collective judgements against all people of another or all other communities are abolished and condemned in the Bahai writings, and I think you will find the Bahai key figures were perfectly consistent in not excluding anyone on the basis of their race, religion or nationality.
Quite distinct from this are the judgements we must all make about the individuals we encounter, whether of our own community or outside it. There are wicked people, and dangerous people, and boors and egoists, and we are by no means required to include such people in our circle of acquaintances, even if they happen to belong to the Bahai community.
Baha’u'llah writes:
and also -
Byron cardozo said
Larry Rowe said:
“This drawing of lines is quite obviously contrary to Abdu’l-Baha’s teaching that we should draw no such lines and see no enemies, but of course Abdu’l-Baha’ himself failed to live by this teaching so it comes as little surprise that today the UHJ fails to live by it as well. Baha’u’llah’s supposed removal of such backward religious division of humanity: the “pure tree” from the “evil tree”, the “faithful” from the “irreligious”*, is a wonderful ideal, yet it is quite apparent that since Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and today the UHJ all failed/fail to live by this laudable precept that this precept has always been for Baha’is simply mouthing of the words.”
Please explain with examples this statement.
hankowings said
I agree with other posters that the language – taken out of context or not – that you use to describe yourself as a “theologian” connotes some sense of religious authority. And while you have repeatedly demonstrated on this site that you are not claiming that position, merely articulating your opinions given your academic background, I believe this will go on deaf ears insofar as it has come after the fact.
Regarding “disenrollment”: I cannot remember where I read it (although I think it might have been in Bower’s God Speaks Again), but both covenant-breaking and disenrollment are for life. The difference being that covenant-breaking is a spiritual disease rooted in claiming personal authority or attacking institutions or figures of the Faith; whereas disenrollment is simply “we no longer want this individual to be a part of our community.” Obviously, since you have been “disenrolled,” I do not think it rests in your criticisms of the UHJ, as other posters have speculated. However, this also confounds the issue of what “authority” you claim, since if it were religious you would have been declared a covenant-breaker and not simply disenrolled. I think that both covenant-breakers and the disenrolled can be reinstated after petitioning the UHJ, but it usually involves an apology to the Faith, a recognition of one’s actions, and the declaration that one lacks the authority they claimed.
I enjoy your blog and hope the UHJ eventually reviews your status.
Sen said
Hi Hank
I also hope that my status may be reviewed, but the fact that no contact person has been nominated for me, and no indication has been given as to what I must do or not do (and this is true also of the other disenrolled Bahais so far as I know), suggests to me that disenrollment is for life. I’ve already made it clear that I do not claim any authority, and I don’t know what exactly I should apologise for, or what actions I should recognise, so apart from applying for re-enrollment every few years, I don’t think there’s much I can do.
Theologians and theology do not have authority generally, and certainly not in the Bahai community. That’s so obvious, it shouldn’t need to be said. There are two basic ways of studying religion: from the outside, studying religion as a historical and social and psychological phenomenon, and from the inside. Both are valid and helpful. The first is the “default” mode of studying religion at a university. The second way, which is (or was) known as theology, comes into action when one has faith, beliefs, and membership of a faith community, and one asks as a believer what that faith, belief and membership implies, and in the case of a scriptural religion, what the scriptures mean in terms of that faith. This is doing theology, or in Bahai parlance, deepening in the faith. It should among other things be critical, rational and evidence-based, and lead to clarifying muddy ideas (what actually is the difference between Abdu’l-Baha and Baha’u'llah), purifying one’s conceptions and practices from the baggage we bring into the Faith, and strengthening our intellectual structures for both teaching and apologetic (defence of the Faith) purposes. When one takes a theological approach, in a university setting today, it is wise to say so outright: otherwise readers and listeners will naturally expect a value-free approach that does not seek either to help or hinder the life of faith. So in my Master’s dissertation I write, “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,..” The spin given to this is simply due to selective citation, and a good deal of ignorance.
When I was at school, theology, under the name “divinity”, was part of the curriculum. It is an indication of the extent to which people today are estranged even from the basic language of religion, that “theology” “dogma” and “doctrine” have come to be classed among the dark arts. In the Sureh-ye Haykal, Baha’u'llah says,
Bearing in mind that “sciences” in Persian and Arabic at the time usually meant the religious sciences, and that Baha’u'llah is speaking here of the sciences that come through the Manifestation, I think he is speaking of the collapse and regeneration of the theological disciplines.
You mention my “articulating your opinions given your academic background.” While I would argue that believers with an academic background should have the same right to expect their opinions to be read constructively and without prejudice as any of the believers, I must point out that I am not an academic: I have no university appointment and don’t seek any academic career. I don’t buttress my thoughts with appeal to academic position, or to works by renowned authors, but rather with quotations from the Bahai writings, and the example set by the founders of religion and by Abdu’l-Baha. I think I’ve been labelled an academic by some people simply because the word has a negative connotation in an anti-intellectual culture. The most I can claim is that some of my best friends are academics, and that’s one prejudice I am innocent of.
Larry Rowe said
Howdy Hank, The term theologian has no connotation of religious authority in it when that authority is understood to be temporal or clerical power, words can have power but only the weak fear words, especially words which speak truth. That the UHJ fears what Sen has to say I find quite interesting, it shows the depths that this Baha’i institution has sunk to. It is so insecure that it can’t tolerate the open independent investigation of the truth, it is so debased that it can’t even follow it’s own advise: “Above all, we expressed our conviction that the time has come when religious leadership must face honestly ii and without further evasion the implications of the truth that God is one and that, beyond all diversity of cultural expression and human interpretation, religion is likewise one.” ~ One Common Faith ~ So apparently this advice of theirs is for religious leadership willing to face the matter of the oneness of religion and the diversity of human interpretation honestly. Quite obviously they themselves are unwilling to do exactly this. It is the Universal House of Justice which owes Sen an apology not the other way around.
Sen said
I don’t think the UHJ fears the results of my research, or even knows about them. That suggestion makes me more important than I am, and it supposes that there’s something in my research that threatens the UHJ. But what would that be? It’s easy to impute “fear” and other intangibles to other people – but without evidence it’s just idle talk.
I don’t suppose any of the members have even read my articles — why should they? The community is far too large for micro-management of that sort. I think it’s likely that they were misinformed about my understanding of basic Bahai teachings, or my activities, or both, and concluded I didn’t meet the requirements of membership.
Larry Rowe said
Personally I’m not sure what’s to fear about anything you’ve written either Sen, but then there is a pattern. Denis McEoin was made to feel so uncomfortable about his scholarly research into Babi history that he felt he had no choice but to resign from the Faith. I don’t know Sen. It would take more than someone implying that you didn’t meet the requirements of membership for them to pull the rug out on you. I can’t see how association could possibly be used as an reason but then again it has been used in the Faith’s history as an excuse to coerce and to other.