Foreword to ‘Church and State’
Foreword
This book presents my own understanding of the Bahai teachings on some issues that are now critically important to the Bahai community and its relations with the world. My approach has been enriched by my Christian background and education, my studies of theology and church history at Knox Theological Hall and Holy Cross Seminary in Dunedin, New Zealand, and studies of Persian and Islamic Studies at Leiden University, in the Netherlands.
I should declare at the outset that my stance is not that of a historian or academic scholar of the science of religion, but of a Bahai theologian, writing from and for a religious community, and I speak as if the reader shares the concerns of that community. As a Bahai theologian, I seek to criticize, clarify, purify and strengthen the ideas of the Bahai community, to enable Bahais to understand their relatively new faith and to see what it can offer the world. The approach is not value-free. I would be delighted if the Bahai Faith proved to have a synergy with post-modernity, if it prospered in the coming decades and had an influence on the world. The reader who is used to academic studies of religion that avoid such value judgements will have to make the necessary adjustments here and there. I do not however write as an apologist: the goal is a serious study that can aid the Bahai community and others to discover the potential for contemporary religious life which lies within the Bahai scriptures, rather than simply to repackage the Bahai Faith in a palatable form for present needs.
I should also say that I place myself somewhere towards the progressive end of the contemporary Bahai spectrum, in other words, that I feel quite at home in a differentiated, pluralistic, individualistic and globally integrating world, and I hope and expect to see post-modern society prosper. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a very different Bahai discourse which regards a postmodern society as a non-viable option since – according to traditionalist ideas of a ‘what society is’ – differentiation and individualism are symptoms of the disintegration of society. Rather than looking forward to an unpredictable synergy with postmodernism, a really new world order, the conservative Bahai discourse hopes to re-establish a society in the traditional sense, once the progressive disintegration of society, as they perceive it, has run its course. The reader should be aware, then, that this is only one among the competing discourses within the contemporary western Bahai community.
Since this book is a reexamination of the Bahai teachings that are relevant to the art of politics in its broadest sense, I presume some knowledge of previous interpretations of the Bahai writings, of the central figures of the Bahai Faith, and the institutions of the Bahai community. A list of introductory and reference works on the Bahai Faith is provided at the end of the book.
As a theologian rather than a political scientist I am interested in principles rather than political mechanisms or history, and particularly in how those principles relate to the nature of the Kingdom and ultimately to the nature of God. Topical applications of these principles are a separate question. The theological principles will undoubtedly need to be supplemented from both practical experience and detailed historical research. It is to be hoped that my intellectual and spiritual debts, and my leaning towards theological rather than historical analysis, have been the source of selective enrichment, rather than bias. The reader is, at any rate, forewarned.
The views offered here are not an authoritative view of the Bahai teachings, nor a definitive statement of my own views on these topics. These are samples from a work in progress, born out of an ongoing argument with myself. It is published now rather than at some other time partly because I have achieved a degree of certainty that at least the broad lines of these ideas do accurately represent the Bahai teachings, but chiefly because the issues dealt with here have become so pressing for the well-being of the Bahai communities in the west, and offer such potential for fruitful dialogue with the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions, that a start must be made.
… (the complete Contents page, Foreword and Introduction are on this blog, in PDF format.
~~~~~~
Short link: http://wp.me/PcgF5-11q
Kalzera said
I read an article that contained a link to this asking why you were Disenrolled. I personally think it has to do with these lines:
“I should declare at the outset that my stance is not that of a historian or academic scholar of the science of religion, but of a Bahai theologian, writing from and for a religious community, and I speak as if the reader shares the concerns of that community. As a Bahai theologian, I seek to criticize, clarify, purify and strengthen the ideas of the Bahai community, to enable Bahais to understand their relatively new faith and to see what it can offer the world. ”
You close by saying you aren’t an authoritative source, but I think the diction of the above lines sort of weakens that statement by the time you get to it. Maybe if you revised this without coming across so strongly it might hasten your re-enrollment; or, if you didn’t use the word “Theologian.” That word alone resembles the idea of “clergy” even though it doesn’t mean such, which, again, might have been the cause for your coming across so strong.
–Kal
Sen said
I agree with you: the various other suggestions about the reasons for my disenrollment are speculative, and can at most supplement what the Universal House of Justice itself has written. Its letter of 14 November 2005 reads to me like a shocked stung reaction to these words.
As you say, on the next page I say “The views offered here are not an authoritative view of the Bahai teachings.” I also say, on the first line of the first page, “This book presents my own understanding of the Bahai teachings..” I put that on the first line for a reason!
However I doubt that the Universal House of Justice had actually seen these two pages, because while I had sent some copies of the book to the World Centre library, they could barely have arrived by 14 November, let alone been catalogued and noticed. I think it’s much more likely that someone sent the UHJ just the words they re-quoted in the 14 November letter, without the context “my stance is not that of a historian or academic scholar of the science of religion, but of a Bahai theologian …” That contrast to academic scholarship would tell any reader what I mean by ‘theologian.’ If the UHJ had been given those words, they could hardly have reacted as they did, because what they themselves have written about Bahai scholarship advocates the theological approach. In religious studies, the theological or ‘emic’ approach is contrasted to the objective study approach that ‘brackets out’ one’s own faith positions (‘etic’). The emic-etic pair is one of the basic definitions used in fields such as anthropology of religion or sociology of religion: anyone educated in these fields would understanding that I am saying that my approach incorporates my own commitment to Bahai belief and the Bahai community – not that I have any authority in the community.
Theology is faith seeking understanding, it starts within a faith position and investigates it, asking “what does this faith mean, is my understanding consistent, is it based on good sources, are there alternative understandings?” Theology does this for a purpose: to strengthen faith, to purify of it of extraneous things inserted into it from history or culture, to keep understanding fresh and stimulate dialogue, to renew the formulations of faith in contemporary language, to defend the faith against critique, to assist the believers in living the life of faith. If someone doing the objective study of religion displayed these motivations, they would be rightly accused of making value judgements: who is to say that it is ‘better’ to use what one faith-tradition calls ‘authentic scripture’ rather than oral traditions? An objective study can only say which sources the believers use, not what doctrinal validity they have.
A theologian is not necessarily a cleric, or vice versa. Theology is a field of study. I study, and write about, theology, ergo I am a theologian, just as someone who teaches philosophy is a Bahai philosopher. I’ve discussed this, and referred to some other Bahai theologians, in an email on this blog.
Other related texts on this blog
Theology 2006-02-13 (includes a rephrasing of the Foreword in avoid the “T” word)
Bahai studies and the academic study of religion
Theology 2009-10-00 (The 4 purposes of theology)
The 4 purposes are also discussed in ‘Theology: a defence’
The knower as servant (on the pastoral role of theology)
Theology 2008-06-03
Theology 2007-01-01
Theology 2005-10-17
Theology 2005-10-21
and in the last couple of paragraphs of ‘What is theology and what’s it good for?,’ which say:
suresh rao kumaran said
dear sen,
hope u still remember our recent interactions.if u do good,if not hope these next remarks will assist yr spiritual quest.
have read the foreward n what little in yr presentation of the early comments of yr book church n state.
my first comment would b for yr to b sure of what u seek to highlight in yr quest for spiritual truth.here i hope u realise that with u views n comments,which i must say are so correct in their analaysis,is what do think can yr contribution b to the those still very devotedly sincere bahais,still in the community thinking they are saving the world with their rhetoric.i must say here,u have hit right on target!!with yr explaination thus far.on my side i find it very acceptable as i have nothing to lose but all to hope for.but u are challeging an established highreachy,where i believe have no interest to maintain,but WILL DO ANYTHING to keep their hold ont he vast wealth now already acquired,n think that if u too become n irritant which to them u are,u will pay!!
second,hope my comment will explain the path yr work has opened.here someone has actually shown,or at least seen for himself the path to spiritual salvation promised at least.its not that we were or are cheated as bahais,or those who accepted what was to us a beautiful teachoing for global properity n weel being but if yr stand is to b or remain with the bahai highflying org,then i dont think u will get further,from where u have been,n are now.u need to break free from,with THEM!!break completely,there is not n iota of wrong in it.i have left,its been 15yrs now,n i must say,my life has so much more meaning now then when i was with them.they have wronged,n must,n wil pay for their wrongdoings>they are cheating,have cheated,n will will resort to anything to keep their office n work going!so hope u realise the depth of yr own devotion,n i must say here of what BAHAULLAH chose to give only to u.
so love always to u and sonja,good to have u as afriend,but if u are,n will b tested,like all others,think yrs would b on yr depth of knowledge,n yr ability to keep sane by just always being HUMBLE.werent we told in many instances of the ultimate test being that of knowledge?m ceratin u will find yr path,n if we happen to cross,remeber,us as friends for life!
Sen said
Thank you,
I have no desire to “get further” :
Since “all is from God,” I see no need to “break free” nor any reason to believe that established hierarchies, of any sort, will be able to frustrate the workings of providence. On the contrary: much becomes clear in the apparently oppositional process, that would not be clear in a smoother one.
In any case, our role is to serve the servants of God, in whatever place we find ourselves, with what we are given to use.
Sen
akismet-dc56cb1b69f74670c2728ed2ff752448Q said
Hi Sen. I enjoy your blog, and learn a lot from it. I also understand the term “theologian” in the sense you wish to articulate. Indeed, I wish sometimes that I could pursue a path of Baha’i “theology” – I enjoy the study, and admire the diligence.
For all of that… the term itself seems to be one that inherently places the Faith at risk – it places your voice as authoritative, no matter what disclaimers you make, and it articulates a posture that in opposite the posture the Faith asks us to all take, in relinquishing such titles. I don’t quite know how else to explain my point, and I’m sure I’m not speaking well. But it seems to me that for the protection of the Faith, you had to be removed from it – your removal allows you to be a “Baha’i theologian” as you put it, without granting that the Faith acknowledges any such thing.
Well, that’s just my thought – your current station stands as a cautionary tale to my own interests and inclinations, but does not seem in any way punitive. I do hope that you are able to articulate a vision for yourself that enables your future enrollment AND your continued study.
QT
Sen said
I think there’s more going on than just a misunderstanding of what a theologian is, although the negative associations of the word undoubtedly played a role. I think the community is also uncertain of its principles, and uncertainty leads to defensive reactions. On the one hand there are quotes like these:
On the other hand, all authority in the Bahai community is in the hands of the Assemblies and the Universal House of Justice. Until the Bahais are really clear in their own minds that there is no contradiction here, anyone with greater learning will be suspected of being a threat to the authority of the Assemblies. It’s sad, but probably inevitable, and perhaps something will be learned through the process that could not have been learned without the conflict and expulsions.