UHJ, 14 November 2005
THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARIAT
Bahá’í World Centre . P.O. Box 155 . 31 001 Haifa, Israel
Tel: . Fax: . Email: secretariat@bwc.org
14 November 2005
Transmitted by email
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.
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”.
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.
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. 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”. 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 behavior of the mass of believers. Indeed, He has prescribed a system that combines democratic practices with the application of knowledge through consultative processes.
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.
With loving Bahá’í greetings,
Department of the Secretariat
~~~~~~~
Short link: http://wp.me/PcgF5-11o
There’s a copy of this letter at
http://bahai-library.org/?file=uhj_issues_study_comment
James Keene said
Google coughs up numerous sites, including that of Moojan Momen (“Baha’i theologian”), explicitly focused on Baha’i theology, “writing from and for a religious community”. Which one is the House referring to in the above letter? If the quotes in the 6th paragraph are from Sen, that does not in itself establish a reference to Sen in particular. Could be Moojan or somebody else, right?
Sen said
The quote is specifically from page 1 of my book _Church and State_ which was published about September-October 2005. The text of the first couple of pages are on my blog here. But yes, many Bahais do theology and would describe themselves as theologians, not as a claim to status but simply as describing how they approach their studies, starting with religious beliefs and asking what the belief implies: done well, theology tells you more about your own beliefs. “Theologians” (ilahiyuun) is a term used by Abdu’l-Baha in just this sense, in contrast to an objective scientific approach which starts with observations of material phenomenon and aims to tell you about the material world.
Schaeffer, in Beyond the clash of religions, sets out to present a “new theological paradigm” which is “the pivot of a new theology.” In a footnote on page 12 he explains:
The work by Schaeffer and Parry and McLean would all have been reviewed – in various countries – before being published, so it’s unlikely there was a widespread prejudice against theology in the Bahai community before 2005, although McLean does seem to be refuting the idea that the Bahai Faith has no theology. So why did the UHJ hit the roof when they saw (presumably out of context) the sentence they quote in their letter of 14 November 2005? I have no idea. The letter reads as if I hit some emotional “hot button” but I have no clue as to the background. I did once exchange letters with a member of the UHJ who said that the Bahai Faith had no theology and needed none, and who wanted me to stop studying theology, but that was long ago and that member is no longer on the UHJ.
Retrospectively, I note the negative references to theology and theologians in “Century of Light” (2001) and ‘to the world’s religious leaders’ (2002).
James Keene said
Given your extensive well-known, thorough, logical and insightful writings, that an analyst such as you, Sen, would not have a clue re his own disenrollment is a stunning fact that begs explanation. And even more so in light of your obvious high esteem for the Baha’i Faith.
Stunning to the nth degree, since your words (from your book introduction) cited by the UJH-to-NSA letter seem to describe what every writer (such as the many bloggers) about Baha’i matters aims to do. If this is true, all (or none?) of these writers should be disenrolled, discarded by the officialdom.
Stunning events raise numerous questions which tend to lead to investigations.
Sen said
Investigate all you like James, but I think there’s a basic lack of data. The only people who really know aren’t telling. Explanations such as “its a punishment for X” are both speculative, and unable to account for the fact that one can easily identify other Bahais who have broken more laws, have more peculiar views, exercise more influence, write more persuasively, are accorded more deference, brought the Faith into more disrepute, etc, than the handful of Bahais who have been disenrolled — so if explanation X is your flavour, explain why those people have NOT been disenrolled. The UHJ is generally forgiving to a fault: one fellow who brought the Faith into gross disrepute and lost his means of livelihood in the process, got a senior paid position in a Bahai school as a substitute.
Perhaps its an idea not to look for retrospective explanations, but rather for future-oriented purposes. What could be the purpose of having some Bahais who are not enrolled?
Looking into the long term, Bahai identity and belief will have to become distinct from enrolled membership. For example, an “unenrolled scientology follower” would be inconceivable: to be into scientology is to be a member of the organisation by definition. But there’s nothing odd about the idea of a Christian who is not registered with a church, or a Muslim not a member of any mosque or Sufi order, or a Buddhist who is not so fussed about the Mahayana/Theravada stuff, he’s just a Buddhist, a follower of the path laid out by the Buddha. As a rule, in a cult (in the sociological sense, a religious organisation at high tension with society), membership and identity are synonymous. If the Bahai Faith is to grow beyond that, membership and identity have to be distinguished.
It’s just my speculation that this is the purpose served by disenrolling a few Bahais at this stage : that it will foster, a generation or two down the line, an “unenrolled Bahai” identity. However this speculation is at least subject to disproof. So far, those disenrolled have been knowledgeable and deepened in the Covenant, people who recognise that the UHJ is the only legitimate head of the Bahai community and therefore has to have the last say on who is a member and who is not. None of us have tried to set up a rival House of Justice, signed up with one of the various Remeyite claimants to the Guardianship, or joined the Unitarian Bahai Association and the like. In other words, we’ve accepted the identity of being unenrolled Bahais. If the UHJ was to disenroll people who did join or create an illegitimate rival to the UHJ, then either (a) my explanation is wrong or (b) it’s right but the UHJ chose the wrong people.
At the same time as the UHJ seems (to me) to be fostering the eventual presence of “unenrolled Bahais” as a normal part of the (wider) Bahai community, what it is expected of those who are enrolled is increasing: they are expected to support a larger number of core activities (apparently in addition to, rather than instead of, the ones we find in the Writings), there’s a sort of catechism to be gone through, certain positions are becoming subject to a requirement of having done certain Ruhi books or being familiar with particular aspects of the current plan and the like, and more generally, the members are expected not to treat being Bahai as one aspect of their lives, but as permeating all their lives. That looks more like the profile of a religious order than a religion, more like “being a Fransiscan” than “being Catholic.”
So my theory is that a couple of centuries down the line, we will see a relatively small cadre of enrolled Bahais who have the vote and do most of the work and run things, and a penumbra of unenrolled Bahais who either are “not that religious” or who are at a period in their lives in which enrollment is not realistic. Baha’u'llah, Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice, each in their own role and station, will be at the centre of both the core and the penumbra, and people may move from one to the other as their committment or circumstances change. And in retrospect, some of those who have been unenrolled in the past 10 years will be seen as analogous to a chapel for the people, built outside the walls of a monastry: it serves the people where they are at, without imposing high standards, and if someone shows signs of a “vocation” (calling) they can consider joining the Order.
It could all pan out quite differently, but that seems to be the way things are heading at the moment. At least it tells me what my job is: to serve the servants of God, with what I’m given, where I am placed
As for the Foreword to my book – yes, it’s the arrogance of all writers and of speakers that they hope their words will have some effect. Otherwise, remain silent. It’s good practice to know what effect you are aiming for, and say it explicitly. Our ideas about the Bahai Faith are mixed with all sorts of non-Bahai influences, marred by misunderstandings, bad logic and inconsistencies, sometimes taken on faith rather than understood and believed, and expressed in ways that bring opposition rather than winning friends. I hope to improve the situation somewhat. A modest enough goal, I thought
Sen