Violetta Zein mentions this letter, and the preceding events, at around 1 hour 24 minutes in her excellent youtube video:…
“Church and State” available as a PDF file
Posted by Sen on March 9, 2022
I have uploaded my 2005 Master’s dissertation here
This is a political theology for the Bahai Faith, and a philosophy for personal orientation in our globalising, postmodern society.
The functional differentiation of society means that government, religion, commerce, art, education and science are increasingly independent, have different social functions, relate differently to one another, and that their lived meanings for us are different. Functional differentiation also drives the pluralism and relativism, global scope and individualisation that characterise postmodern society. In a society in which religious ritual is the mirror of individual distinctiveness, not of collective identity, in which permanent pluralism means that no one religion can provide common norms and values (and no state ideology should be promoted as a substitute), and in which the norms of one sphere of life are not transferred to other spheres, religion must find a new understanding of itself, and a new job description for its role in society. The 20th century has taught us that economic affairs cannot be governed by political ideologies, that science must be free of doctrine and political agendas, that church and state must be separated. But it has not provided us with a new world view that explains the postmodern world as we experience it today. This book draws on the Bahai scriptures, and the Bible and Quran, to show that the differentiation and globalisation of postmodern society are signs that the Kingdom of God is growing in the world.
There are discussions of my book on this blog under “Church and State Q&A” (2008), and “Method and focus in my Church and State.” There are articles on the same topic on this blog, under the “Church and State” category, and more discussions in the comments under those blog entries.
Since 2005, Bahai Studies has moved on. What was once somewhat controversial is now accepted as common sense: the separation of Church and State is one of the central Bahai teachings. In 2010, in his ‘Hegemony and Revelation’ article
(Religious Studies and Theology 29.1 (2010) 123–138 ), Roshan Danesh rejects … “any claim that the intention of Baha’u’llah’s “new world order” is for Bahai political institutions, and the Bahai community, to claim, and acquire, temporal power” and attributes such views in the past to “popular Bahai discourse” (pp 136, 133).
In March 2021, the Youtube channel “Bahai Faith, Modern Perspectives” posted a recent presentation given by Dr. Behrooz Sabet. At 28 minutes, following an introduction to the two goals of cultural and moral transformation and the renewal of the political and economic structures of society, he says (and his slide presentation shows): “Bahais believe in separation of church and state, non-involvement in partisan politics…”
In the question time, at 53 minutes, he is asked “Would the separation of Church and State mean that the Bahai institutions like the Local and Universal Houses of Justice remain as internal institutions of the Faith and not for ruling over general society?” While saying that he has no specific answer, Dr. Sabet says “definitely certain principles will be… We need to mention, to remember, and that is, separation of church and state is one of the fundamentals of the Baha’i Faith … we also believe in consultative processes and universal participation of all peoples of the world, whether Baha’i or not, in decision-making, in forming their government, in forming their institutions.”
Nader Saiedi’s video presentations and short articles on the Bahai Teachings blog are further examples.
This is not to say that “church and state” is now done and dusted in Bahai Studies. Among the issues still be to be tackled effectively is the meaning of “Bahai Commonwealth” and “Bahai world Commonwealth” in Shoghi Effendi’s English works, and what the equivalent term is in his Persian works. I made a start, on this blog, under “Two Commonwealths” and “Commonwealth and government.”
~~~~~~~~~
Short URL: https://wp.me/pcgF5-3lh
Related content:
Theocratic ideas and assumptions in Bahai Literature: an enquiry; published in S. Fazel and J. Danesh (eds) Reason and Revelation, Studies in Babi and Baha’i Religions vol. 13, Los Angeles, Kalimat Press, 2002
A Theology of the State from the Baha’i Teachings, from the Journal of Church & State Autumn 1999, pp. 697 – 724
Sen McGlinn's blog 
Jim said
Sen, I’m interested in your best hopes for the Baha’i community under the administration of the Universal House of Justice seated in Haifa, and how those hopes have evolved since you first learned about it. What were your best hopes then, what are they now, and how did they get from there to here?
Jim said
(later) I followed your link to “Method and focus in my Church and State,” and found part of an answer to my question:
“The most we can hope for is that the decisions of the UHJ will, circumstances permitting, progressively approximate to the Bahai teachings, and that the trajectory laid out in this progressive approximation will be one appropriate to the community and the world at
each stage.”
Maybe if I search some more, I’ll find some more answers, but I’m still hoping for you to write some paragraphs, here in the comments or maybe even in a new blog post, about your best hopes for the community under the administration of the UHJ, what they are now, what they were when you first learned about it, and how they have evolved.
Sen said
I have no particular insights on those topics Jim. The memoirs of senior staff at the BWC would make interesting reading, but if they exist they will likely be embargoed for 50 years. To an outsider, it’s all opaque.
Jim said
I’m thinking that maybe I didn’t ask the question right. You said that the best that you’re hoping for now is that “the decisions of the UHJ will, circumstances permitting, progressively approximate to the Bahai teachings, and that the trajectory laid out in this progressive approximation will be one appropriate to the community and the world at each stage.” Is there any more that you can say about what your hopes are now, for the Baha’i community and what it can do for the world? When you first started learning about the Faith, were your hopes for it any different from what they are now?
Jim said
Sorry. I think that you’ve already answered those questions in “Baha’i Meets Globalisation” and “Church and State.” Stil, if there’s anything more you can think of to say about what your hopes are now for the Baha’i community and what it can do for the world, and if your hopes are any different now from what they were in the beginning, I’m interested.
Sen said
I started as we all do by taking my ideas from the Bahais around me, especially from the speakers at summer schools — since that was pre-internet days. Gradually I’ve aligned my understanding with the Bahai writings, little by little and mainly in the areas that happen to interest me, which relate to the shape of the good society and the good life.
Paul Desailly said
No follower of Baha’u’llah should worry about what direction the Universal House of Justice has taken, is taking or will take, for the institution per se has been guided, is now guided, and will continue to be guided and protected – by the Almighty. No member of the Baha’i Faith need worry about what’s gonna happen to the Universal House of Justice until around the middle of the 29th century (BE 1,000) when the next Manifestation of God perchance will appear on what’s left of the Earth after a chastened humanity has lived through what the Guardian depicts as ‘a mere foretaste of the devastation’ experienced in all of World War 2: https://bahaiforums.com/threads/and-when-the-war-is-over-in-ukraine.25509/
What the whole world needs to worry about, and-or pray for, is the leaders of religion (as individuals) who “in EVERY AGE have hindered the people from attaining the shores of salvation” because the the Master states that it is their influence that starts wars because of their lust for leadership and-or due to their want of knowledge.
Sen said
Shoghi Effendi made a compilation of scriptural passages and examples such as “Leaders of religion, in every age, have hindered their people from attaining the shores of eternal salvation,.. (Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 15)
That compilation ends with these words :
“Nor should it be thought for a moment that the followers of Bahá’u’lláh either seek to degrade or even belittle the rank of the world’s religious leaders, whether Christian, Muslim, or of any other denomination, should their conduct conform to their professions, and be worthy of the position they occupy. “Those divines,” Bahá’u’lláh has affirmed, “…who are truly adorned with the ornament of knowledge and of a goodly character are, verily, as a head to the body of the world, and as eyes to the nations. The guidance of men hath, at all times, been and is dependent upon these blessed souls.” And again: “The divine whose conduct is upright, and the sage who is just, are as the spirit unto the body of the world. Well is it with that divine whose head is attired with the crown of justice, and whose temple is adorned with the ornament of equity.” And yet again: “The divine who hath seized and quaffed the most holy Wine, in the name of the sovereign Ordainer, is as an eye unto the world. Well is it with them who obey him, and call him to remembrance.” “Great is the blessedness of that divine,” He, in another connection, has written, “that hath not allowed knowledge to become a veil between him and the One Who is the Object of all knowledge, and who, when the Self-Subsisting appeared, hath turned with a beaming face towards Him. He, in truth, is numbered with the learned. The inmates of Paradise seek the blessing of his breath, and his lamp sheddeth its radiance over all who are in heaven and on earth. He, verily, is numbered with the inheritors of the Prophets. He that beholdeth him hath, verily, beheld the True One, and he that turneth towards him hath, verily, turned towards God, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” “Respect ye the divines amongst you,” is His exhortation, “They whose acts conform to the knowledge they possess, who observe the statutes of God, and decree the things God hath decreed in the Book. Know ye that they are the lamps of guidance betwixt earth and heaven. They that have no consideration for the position and merit of the divines amongst them have, verily, altered the bounty of God vouchsafed unto them.”
(The Promised Day is Come, p. 110)
I think it’s important not to give the impression that the Bahai teachings are anti-clerical in principle. Rather there is a very high standard for the behaviour of leaders of religion, and in the time of the Bab, Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha, they saw very many clerics failing that standard.
hasanelias said
Hi Sen.
I have seen parts of Behrooz Sabet’s presentation and I agree with everything I saw, which is almost the same as your book Church and State and Nader Saiedi’s book Logos and Civilization (last chapter).
The three of you talk about an organic unity (or living organism) and harmony between church and state, it is not a simplistic separation (much less a divorce).
It is mid-May 2022 and the official translation of the Risalih ye Siyasiyyih is not here yet. Do you have news about this? Thanks in advance.
Jim said
Sen, thanks. That helps. Your comment to Paul was helpful to me, too.
Sen said
Hi Hasan: I’ve heard nothing new about the translation of the Risalih ye Siyasiyyih that is “forthcoming” from the Bahai World Centre. It is one of the most difficult texts from Abdu’l-Baha, because of the very high rhetorical style.
Jim said
There was a time many years ago when I was thinking that in the future the spiritual assemblies would replace the world’s governments, but I never had a very clear or detailed view of that, and I was never very much attached to it. It had nothing to do with any ideas about theocracy, or what any Baha’i authors said about it. It was just my understanding of some things that Shoghi Effendi said or that I thought he said, for example about the Baha’i administration being the nucleus of the new world order. It was easy for me to abandon it. A lot easier, and less traumatic, than embracing regional councils!
Sen said
Ah yes — but then, a “new world order” is not a government, it is a civilization, a fellowship, a Commonwealth:
May the assembled believers — now but a tiny nucleus of the Bahá’í Commonwealth of the future… (April 12, 1927, in Baha’i Administration 131)
… its administrative institutions … must be regarded as the nucleus and herald of that World Order that must incarnate the soul, execute the laws, and fulfill the purpose of the Faith of God in this day. (God Passes By (1944) xiii)
The first epoch witnessed the birth and the primary stages in the erection of the framework of the Administrative Order of the Faith – the nucleus and pattern of its World Order … (June 5, 1947, in Citadel of Faith 5)
an effort, however tentative, must be made to establish a nucleus, through the settlement of one or two pioneers which will, as Plans are initiated in the years to come, develop into full-fledged communities … (May 8, 1948, in Dawn of a New Day 131)
The companions of Baha’u’llah in Baghdad and later are “the nucleus of a world-embracing Fellowship” (God Passes By 158). It is apparent that Shoghi Effendi uses nucleus in its organic sense, as was common at that time, not in its sense in atomic science.
The world order in the inter-governmental inter-state sense (Westphalia, George Bush …) grows out of inter-state institutions and the Bahais as such are not an agent in this: we can advise and suggest, based on our teachings and our (fairly) inclusive global community how that world order could work. The vision of a New World Order requires this hard power skeleton, but it is civilizational and individual — it is what enables individuals to develop their full human potential. What is essential to your life: is it government, or is it art, intellect, relationships, feeling useful through service?
Jim said
What prescriptions do you see in the writings of Baha’u’llah for the creation and administration of a community of His followers?
Jim said
Sen, in the introduction to “Church and State,” you wrote “I am also aware that the criticisms of those opposed to such a wholesale rethinking of Bahai teachings will themselves contribute to a healthy dialectic process which will take some generations.” I’m not opposed to such a wholesale rethinking of Baha’i teachings, but I might be able to offer some useful criticisms of what you’re saying and how you’re saying i. I don’t have any platform other than maybe Facebook, and I would rather do it privately anyway. Can it be by email? Actually, maybe I could post my criticisms on Facebook, and set the privacy on those posts for only you to see them.
Sen said
Hi Jim, I prefer email to other media.
Sen said
“What prescriptions do you see in the writings of Baha’u’llah for the creation and administration of a community of His followers?”
Five things stand out for me: the appointment of Abdu’l-Baha with full authority, the provision for local communities to be managed by the local House of Justice, the term “law of God” (shari`ah) and a partial list of community laws, the institution of the Huququllah and the provision for 19-day feasts (the last of these with no administrative role in the writings of Baha’u’llah, so far as I know). One could add the Mashriq and all its dependencies, notably schools, but these are framed as service to society rather than creating a community
Jim said
Sen, thanks. I don’t see Baha’u’llah saying anything about the houses of justice as part of an administrative system for a community of His followers. He says “It behoveth them to be the trusted ones of the Merciful among men and to regard themselves as the guardians appointed of God for all that dwell on earth.” Not “administrators,” not “among the believers,” and not “all the members of a community of My followers.” In Baha’u’llah’s writings, they are counselors and guardians, not administrators of local and national communities. In the five things you mentioned, do you see any reference, implicit or explicit, to a *community* of His followers with houses of justice as its local and national administrative institutions? Does He explicitly mention any community administration functions for houses of justice? I know that believers, individually, have some privileges in the inheritance laws. I know that sometimes He talks to and about “the people of Baha,” and “this people,” but none of that looks to me like referring to a community of His followers with a list of members and a system of administration that goes beyond following His prescriptions and instructions. Passing the hearts of His followers on to Abdu’l-Baha doesn’t necessarily imply the creation of a community with a system of administration that goes beyond following the instructions of Abdu’l-Baha. I’m not disagreeing with Shoghi Effendi assigning administrative functions to them, over local and national communities. I just don’t see that as being specifically ordained by Baha’u’llah.
Jim said
I’m thinking now that maybe there is nothing at all whatsoever in the *administrative* functions of spiritual assemblies that is part of the law of God and can’t be changed, or assigned to others. If you think that’s contradicting anything in the writings of Baha’u’llah, I’m hoping for you to show me.
I left out part of what I meant to say in my previous post. In my understanding of Baha’u’llah’s writings, the houses of justice are counselors and guardians, not administrators, and they serve *all* people, not only a community of His followers. Not that they can’t serve at the same time as administrators of a community of His followers, just that I don’t see anything in the writings of Baha’u’llah saying that they will.
Sen said
Hi Jim, there’s lots. The Persian compilation Amr wa Khalq is like “lights of guidance” but being older it gathers texts by Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha. These include many on the functions and procedures and duties of the local House of Justice, and the penalties they may impose.
“Should the deceased leave no offspring, their share shall revert to the House of Justice, to be expended by the Trustees of the All-Merciful on the orphaned and widowed, and on whatsoever will bring benefit to the generality of the people …” “It is incumbent upon them to take
counsel together and to have regard for the interests of the servants of God, for His sake, even as they regard their own interests, and to choose that which is meet and seemly.” (Baha’u’llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas,)
“The eighth Ishraq: This passage, now written by the Pen of Glory, is accounted as part of the Most Holy Book. The men of God’s House of Justice have been charged with the affairs of the people in every State. They in truth are the trustees of God amongst His servants, and the manifestation of His authority in His realms. O people of God! The educator of mankind is Justice, for it rests upon the twin pillars of Reward and Punishment – pillar that are the very source of life to the world. Inasmuch as for every day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the house of Justice, that the members thereof may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. They that for the sake of God arise to serve His Cause are recipients of Divine Inspiration. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them. Administrative affairs should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship must be observed according as they are revealed by God in His Book. …” (Eighth Israq, Shoghi Effendi’s translation).
Aqdas Q&A:
49. QUESTION: Concerning the penalties for adultery, sodomy, and theft, and the degrees thereof.
ANSWER: The determination of the degrees of these penalties rests with the House of Justice.
50. QUESTION: Concerning the legitimacy or otherwise of marrying one’s relatives.
ANSWER: These matters likewise rest with the Trustees of the House of Justice.
Answer 98: .. “; if, by the end [of the year of patience], there is no reconciliation, divorce taketh place. This must be recorded in the registry by the religious judicial officer of the city appointed by the Trustees of the House of Justice. Observance of this procedure is essential .”
and from Abdu’l-Baha:
“All must consider themselves to be of the order of subjects, submissive and obedient to the commandments of God and the laws of the House of Justice. Should any deviate by so much as a needle’s point from the decrees of the Universal House of Justice, or falter in his compliance therewith, then is he of the outcast and rejected.
(Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 67)
“Should the father fail in his duty he must be compelled to discharge his responsibility, and should he be unable to comply, let the House of Justice take over the education of the children; in no case is a child to be left without an education.
(Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 127, see Aqdas para 48)
“Should that [Universal] House of Justice decide, either unanimously or by a majority, upon a matter that is not explicitly recorded in the Book, that decision and command will be guarded from error.
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions New Translation)
“And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error, it must be elected by universal suffrage, that is, by the believers. Its members must be manifestations of the fear of God and daysprings of knowledge and understanding, must be steadfast in God’s faith and the well-wishers of all mankind. By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice, that is, in all countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one. Unto this body all things must be referred. It enacteth all ordinances and regulations that are not to be found in the explicit Holy Text. By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved” (Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 14)
“It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice) to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book. Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same. Thus for example, the House of Justice enacteth today a certain law and enforceth it, and a hundred years hence, circumstances having profoundly changed and the conditions having altered, another House of Justice will then have power, according to the exigencies of the time, to alter that law. This it can do because these laws form no part of the divine explicit Text. The House of Justice is both the initiator and the abrogator of its own laws. (Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 19)
and so on — there are tablets on everything from bath-houses to building Mashriqu’l-Adhkars. So definitely Baha’u’llah envisioned the Houses of Justice primarily as administrators of a community of his followers. He founded a religion, not a meta-religion. The administration of the Bahai shariah (law of God, religious law) is flexible, it can be changed, suspended, implemented, as the needs of the time dictate.
Jim said
Sen, thanks. I’m still thinking that maybe there’s nothing in the creation of the Baha’i community and its administration by spiritual assemblies and the House of Justice that is ordained by Baha’u’llah and can’t be changed, but what I mean by “administration” is not clear in my own mind, I need to organize my thoughts about it some more.
Jim said
Maybe I should drop the word “administration,” and describe what I’m thinking more precisely. I don’t see anything in the writings of Baha’u’llah saying that His followers should organize as a community with a list of members, sectioned off from the rest of society, with houses of justice elected only by its members, deciding only for that community what its goals, plans and policies will be. I agree with what Shoghi Effendi says about the importance for Baha’u’llah’s purposes of having a community like that, but I don’t see any of it as being specifically ordained by Baha’u’llah, or intended as an interpretation of anything in His writings. In my understanding of Baha’u’llah’s writings, the houses of justice are counselors and guardians for all people, not only for some lists of members chosen by national houses of justice elected only by the members, subject to reversal by an international one. Any decisions they make about laws apply to all people. I don’t see Him saying that they make decisions about goals, plans and policies for anyone, but even if they do, those decisions apply to all people, not only to some lists of members chosen by national houses of justice elected only by the members, subject to reversal by an international one.
How this relates to “Church and State” is that if you are thinking of houses of justice only as institutions of a Baha’i “church,” whose decisions apply only in the sphere of the church, that’s contrary to my understanding of what Baha’u’llah says about them.
Another question just came to mind. Who decided who the members of each local Baha’i community were, for the first election of its local spiritual assembly? Who decided who the members of each national Baha’i community were, for the first election of its national spiritual assembly?
Sen said
Hi Jim
The scriptural position is just the opposite of what you present. The Houses of Justice are elected only by members and their decisions apply only to believers.
On the second point: the first paragraph of the Aqdas says that Faith must precede obedience, and that obedience without recognition of the law-giver is pointless. This applies of course to religious law, whereas in relation to the civil law of governments, all must obey (and for Bahais it is a religious duty to obey the government) and obedience is enforced by coercive means. This too is specified in the Bahai writings, for example :
“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath ever regarded, and will continue to regard, the hearts of men as His own, His exclusive possession. All else, whether pertaining to land or sea, whether riches or glory, He hath bequeathed unto the Kings and rulers of the earth. … What mankind needeth in this day is obedience unto them that are in authority, and a faithful adherence to the cord of wisdom. The instruments which are essential to the immediate protection, the security and assurance of the human race have been entrusted to the hands, and lie in the grasp, of the governors of human society. This is the wish of God and His decree…. (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 206-7)
Those instruments are not just soldiers and police, they include the judiciary and penal system. The Bahai houses of justice / assemblies do not have these instruments, although the name “house of justice” might make people think so. Abdu’l-Baha writes :
“The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the government should not infer from the term “House of Justice” that a court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or that at any time it will interfere with governmental affairs.
Hereafter, enemies will be many. They would use this subject as a cause for disturbing the mind of the government and confusing the thoughts of the public. The intention was to make known that by the term Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality), that Gathering has not the least connection with material matters, and that its whole aim and consultation is confined to matters connected with spiritual affairs. This was also instructed (performed) in all Persia.
(Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v1, p. 5)
Shoghi Effendi writes :
“Let them proclaim that in whatever country they reside, and however advanced their institutions, or profound their desire to enforce the laws, and apply the principles, enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh, they will, unhesitatingly, subordinate the operation of such laws and the application of such principles to the requirements and legal enactments of their respective governments. Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries. (The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 65)
And a letter on his behalf says
“The Administrative Order is not a governmental or civic body, it is to regulate and guide the internal affairs of the Bahá’í community; consequently it works, according to its own procedure, best suited to its needs. (Messages to Canada, 276)
As for the voting methods, only the recognized Bahais have a vote, which is natural since the decisions of the Administrative Order apply only to the Bahai believers. Abdu’l-Baha writes :
“And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error, it must be elected by universal suffrage, that is, by the believers. … By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice, that is, in all countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one. (The Will and Testament, p. 14)
And Shoghi Effendi interprets this:
“These words clearly indicate that a three-stage election has been provided by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá for the formation of the International House of Justice, and as it is explicitly provided in His Will and Testament that the “Secondary House of Justice (i.e., National Assemblies) must elect the members of the Universal One,” it is obvious that the members of the National Spiritual Assemblies will have to be indirectly elected by the body of the believers in their respective provinces. In view of these complementary instructions the principle … has been established requiring the believers (the beloved of God) in every country to elect a certain number of delegates who, in turn, will elect their national representatives (Secondary House of Justice or National Spiritual Assembly) whose sacred obligation and privilege will be to elect in time God’s Universal House of Justice. (Baha’i Administration, p. 84)
Voting lists are a requisite for voting, and also for the institution of the Feast. The principle of membership has always been recognition from above. Abdu’l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi accepted individual declarations, local groups made lists and submit them to Shoghi Effendi or to the National Assembly, and election results are sent from the local to the national level and approved there. The local proposes, the higher level disposes.
Jim said
Sen, thanks.
Can you give me anything from the *writings of Baha’u’llah* explicitly ordaining the formation of national houses of justice and a universal one? Not writings of Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi about their creation and functions, but *writings of Baha’u’llah* saying explicitly that houses of justice should be formed at three levels, and assigning functions explicitly to one level or another? Can you give me anything from the *writings of Baha’u’llah* that says or could be interpreted as saying that there should be a community of His followers, with a universal house of justice making decisions about goals, plans and policies only for that community? Can you give me anything from the *writings of Baha’u’llah* that says or could be interpreted as saying that houses of justice are counselors and guardians only for a community whose members are chosen in the way that members of the Baha’i community are chosen today? Only from the *writings of Baha’u’llah*. or from writings of Abdu’l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi that are explicitly interpretations of writings of Baha’u’llah, with examples from His writings of what they are interpreting.
Jim said
There might be a misunderstanding between us about what I’m thinking. I understand that *Abdu’l-Baha* gave instructions for electing national spiritual assemblies and the Universal House of Justice, that *He and Shoghi Effendi* assigned an authority and some functions to them which apply only to a community of believers, and that those institutions will never replace the governments, or expect to dictate or try to influence specific actions and policies of governments. Also, I understand that God, in the person of the Manifestation, has always granted authority and power, and always will, over everything but people’s hearts to kings and rulers, and in my understanding it would be contrary to His purposes and prescriptions, and to the intentions of Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, for any of their houses of justice to expect to dictate or try to influence specific actions and policies of governments. If you want to call that “separation of church and state,” and a “central teaching of the Baha’i Faith,” that’s okay with me.
Apart from that, I’m asking for *writings of Baha’u’llah* that say or have been explicitly interpreted as saying that there will be national houses of justice, and a universal one, with an authority and with functions that apply only to a community of believers recognized as members by national houses of justice.
Baha’u’llah says:
“The Lord hath ordained that in every city a House of Justice be established wherein shall gather counsellors … It behoveth them to be the trusted ones of the Merciful among men and to regard themselves as the guardians appointed of God for all that dwell on earth.”
Counselors, and guardians, “For all that dwell on earth.” Not only for a community of people who are recognized as believers by national houses of justice. I’m asking for *writings of Baha’u’llah* that say or have been explicitly interpreted as saying, contrary to that, that houses of justice are counselors and guardians only for a community of believers recognized as members by national houses of justice.
Sen said
I do not know of anything from Baha’u’llah himself that implies a “national” house of justice in the sense we know a nation-state today. He does however refer to the existence or absence of a House of Justice in a belaad, an Arabic term which has implications ranging from a city and the surrounding territory on the lower end up to a small province. The Ottoman empire was an empire, not a “country,” but it did have larger and smaller administrative districts which were small enough to be administered given the communications of the time, and had boundaries broadly corresponding to majority languages and ethnicities.
In Verse 42 of the Aqdas Baha’u’llah says “Endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of Signs. None hath the right to dispose of them without leave from Him Who is the Dawning-place of Revelation. After Him, this authority shall pass to the Aghsan, and after them to the House of Justice — should it be established in the world by then — that they may use these endowments for the
benefit of the Places which have been exalted in this Cause, and for whatsoever hath been enjoined upon them by Him Who is the God of might and power. Otherwise, the endowments shall revert to the people of Baha who speak not except by His leave and judge
not save in accordance with what God hath decreed in this Tablet — lo, they are the champions of victory betwixt heaven and earth — that they may use them in the manner that hath been laid down in the Book by God, the Mighty, the Bountiful.
“should it be established in the world” translates f’il-bilaad (using a transcription for Arabic), ie it means that the charitable endowment in question falls under the control of the house of justice for that bilaad if it exists, and otherwise to a group of “people of Baha” recognized as being true to the teachings and champions of victory. The [NSA] or trustees use the endowment for the benefit of the holy places, presumably in the bilaad.
Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament is explicit about the secondary houses of justice that are to elect the Universal House of Justice. I gather your question is about where this comes from in the writings of Baha’u’llah. In the example above, we can see it is implicit in the writings of Baha’u’llah, but we should also remember that Abdu’l-Baha was taught by Baha’u’llah over many decades. The topic of the House of Justice would surely have come up. So in general, Abdu’l-Baha can be regarded as transmitting and interpreting the words of Baha’u’llah even where he does not say what words he is referencing. The words may never have been recorded, or they may be recorded but Abdu’l-Baha does not mention them because he knows his hearer has no access to them.
The example above also answers your question about only Bahais being elected and serving on the Assemblies – the Bahais are the people of Baha. And about the scope of service of the Assemblies: they are to preserve the holy places and serve the whole society. In the time of Abdu’l-Baha, many of the Assemblies, local and national, had charitable funds and engaged in charitable activities, and this is referenced in his tablets, for they asked for advice.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of these tablets that reference the details of the Bahai Administration and the existence of a Universal House of Justice that can make rules governing all the houses of justice. Here’s one example:
The term of service of the members of a consultative assembly, ere the convening of the House of Justice, is five years. When the House of Justice is convened, whatsoever its members deem fit must be obeyed by all.
For the present, members of consultative assemblies are at liberty to resign. When more than half the members of a consultative assembly gather together, they may take counsel together and arrive at a resolution.
The chairman of the consultative assembly enjoyeth the prerogative associated with this position, being entitled to cast two votes.
These matters are according to the principles and standards observed today. When, however, the Universal House of Justice is established, it will deliberate upon all these matters, both large and small, and, according to the exigencies of the time, issue a binding resolution.
(from Additional Tablets, Extracts and Talks)
http://www.bahai.org/r/458505407
Jim said
“So in general, Abdu’l-Baha can be regarded as transmitting and interpreting the words of Baha’u’llah even where he does not say what words he is referencing.”
If that’s extrapolating from what Baha’u’llah says about referring what we don’t understand in the Book to Abdu’l-Baha, then it looks to me like stretching it way too far. I would agree with saying that Abdu’l-Baha would never do anything contrary to Baha’u’llah’s purposes and prescriptions, but not that everything He says for Baha’is to do is His interpretation of some words of Baha’u’llah. I’m thinking that without Abdu’l-Baha saying explicitly that three levels of houses of justice, with an authority and some functions within a community of believers, in addition to their functions as counselors and guardians for all people, are His interpretation of what was prescribed by Baha’u’llah, we have no way of knowing that they are. We can be sure that they are not contrary to anything that Baha’u’llah said, and that they are serving His purposes, but we can’t be sure that they were actually prescribed by Him, unless you’re thinking that *everything* that Abdu’l-Baha says for Baha’is to do is an interpretation of something prescribed by Baha’u’llah. Are you? If so, I would disagree with you. For example, when Abdu’l-Baha divides the United States into four areas and assigns different goals to each area, is He transmitting and interpreting some words of Baha’u’llah, about dividing it up and assigning those goals specifically in that way? When He says that books about the Baha’i Faith written by Baha’is need to be reviewed, is He transmitting and interpreting some words of Baha’u’llah?
“The words may never have been recorded, or they may be recorded but Abdu’l-Baha does not mention them because he knows his hearer has no access to them.” It seems to me that at the very least, Abdu’l-Baha would say something like “according to the commands of the Blessed Beauty …” Also, it’s hard for me to imagine, if three levels of houses of justice were prescribed by Baha’u’llah. with an authority and some functions within a community of believers, in addition to their functions as counselors and guardians for all people, that would not be recorded anywhere in His writings, where it could be and would be found and cited by Shoghi Effendi.
I’m still not seeing any reason to think that Baha’u’llah Himself gave any instructions, explicit or implicit, for creating a community of people recognized as believers by Baha’i institutions, with houses of justice having an authority and functions only for that community, in addition to their functions as counselors and guardians for all people. The fact that Abdu’l-Baha did so, without Him saying explicitly that it was His interpretation of instructions from Baha’u’llah, and without seeing anything in Baha’u’llah’s writings that could be interpreted in that way, is not a reason for me to think that it was.
I see Baha’u’llah saying that the houses of justice are counselors and guardians for *all people*, not only for a community of people recognized as believers by Baha’i institutions. I see Him saying that after the Aghsan, endowments dedicated to charity will pass to the house of justice, “for the benefit of the Places which have been exalted in this Cause, and for whatsoever hath been enjoined upon them by Him.” What I see being enjoined upon them by Baha’u’llah is to consider themselves as guardians for *all people,” and some ways of doing that. If there is no house of justice, the endowments pass to “the people of Baha who speak not except by His leave and judge not save in accordance with what God hath decreed in this Tablet.” None of that is a reason for me to think that the idea for having a community of people recognized as believers by Baha’i institutions, with houses of justice having an authority and functions only for that community, in addition to their functions as counselors and guardians for all people, was prescribed by Baha’u’llah.
However that may be, my main point is that I see Baha’u’llah saying that houses of justice are counselors and guardians for *all people*, not only for a community of people recognized as believers by Baha’i institutions. Considering them only in the context of separation of church and state, as a church institution whose decisions apply only to a community of believers, seems to me to obscure that. Maybe what I would want to see, in any discussion about separation of church and state as a central teaching of the Baha’i Faith, would be at the very least a footnote somewhere, calling attention to that passage from Baha’u’llah, saying that houses of justice are counselors and guardians for *all people*, and that you haven’t seen or heard of anything in His writings contrary to that. Have you?
Sen said
Hi Jim,
To begin with your main point, that you see Baha’u’llah saying that houses of justice are counselors and guardians for *all people*, not only for a community of people recognized as believers by Baha’i institutions.
That is correct: the scope of their work is not limited to Bahais, or to the locality. Remember that this paragraph of the Aqdas is about the members of the *local* House of Justice: “It behoveth them to be the trusted ones of the Merciful among men and to regard themselves as the guardians appointed of God for all that dwell on earth. It is incumbent upon them to take counsel together and to have regard for the interests of the servants of God, for His sake, even as they regard their own interests, …” (Aqdas para. 30).
Obviously this does not imply any domination over all the people of the earth, which would be (a) preposterously impossible and (b) create a conflict of powers, since the House of Justice in the village down the road has the same mandate, and so forth around the globe of a million villages, each House of Justice having the same calling. So this verse does not have the implications you imagine for church and state. It does imply a vision of the role of Bahai institutions as serving the interests of the whole society, but that is something that permeates the whole of the Bahai writings (and the New Testament).
The decisions of the House of Justice however apply only to the Bahais. The first paragraph of the Aqdas says that Faith must precede obedience, and that obedience without recognition of the law-giver is pointless.
As to your search for an explicit mention of the Universal House of Justice in the writings of Baha’u’llah, I do not know of anything explicit, although it may exist, but there are instances so strong as to make such an institution an inescapable necessity of Baha’u’llah’s scheme. Any reference to a House of Justice whose ruling applies to all Bahais necessarily requires that there be a universal House of Justice for all Bahais. For example in Answer 100 of the Aqdas, Baha’u’llah says: “In this regard, a law was revealed in the Land of Mystery, temporarily awarding the missing heirs’ inheritance to the existing heirs until such time as the House of Justice shall be established, when the decree concerning this will be promulgated.” The most likely reading I think is that a (singular) House of Justice will make a ruling that will apply to Bahais in whatever city or village they may live, whether that has a local House of Justice or not.
An example of a different kind is that the Bahai calendar was not sufficiently specified for it to be implemented. That gap could only be filled by a universal House of Justice, because if different rulings were made in each village the result would be negative. Such examples are numerous. The penalty for fornication and adultery in the Aqdas is insufficiently specified: does it differ for married and unmarried people? (it does in Islamic law). Abdu’l-Baha says that it is for unmarried people, and the House of Justice must rule on the case of married people. Such a general ruling that specifies the Bahai law as such, and not just what is to be done in a case, implies a House of Justice above the local level. An example is the ruling that a concrete or hardwood casket meets the requirements of the Aqdas law. This ruling concerns the nature of Bahai law /as such/ and applies to all Bahais everywhere. On the other hand, it’s not always practical. Local decisions have to be made by families and local communities, in the light of their knowledge of the general rule
It would be tempting to add the forbidden degrees of marriage as an example of a gap that must be filled by a universal House of Justice. Baha’u’llah’s reference to this in the Aqdas is very brief. However this gap that had to be filled, according to my translation of a tablet by Abdu’l-Baha, should be filled by the secondary house of justice, ie the National Spiritual Assembly. See https://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/religious-law-and-house-of-justice/
Based on my translation, this gap in Bahai law and Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretation of it are evidence that Baha’u’llah envisioned Houses of Justice able to “supplement and apply” his law for a cultural unit approximating to a country. He says:
”… In short, whatever ruling the House of Justice makes in this respect [the degrees of consanguity], is the decisive decree, it is God’s sharp sword. No one may transgress that limit. If you consider, it will be apparent how much this rule (that is, referring cultural laws to the House of Justice) is consistent with wisdom. For whenever a difficulty may arise in relation to the local context of an issue, since the House of Justice delivered the previous ruling, the secondary House of Justice can issue a new national ruling on the national case and instance, in the light of local contingencies. “Consultation with all, wards off danger.” This is because the House of Justice is entitled to abrogate what it itself has decided.”
A meta-example of a gap in the writings that requires one universal House of Justice is that many cases could be local, societal or international. There is no definition of what is meant by “excessive hunting.” Who is to decide whether that gap is to be filled by local, national or international rulings? A universal House of Justice is implied, to say at what level decisions are to be made.
All of the above refers simply to the Aqdas: it shows that a universal House of Justice is implied there, although the great majority of the references to a House of Justice (for example in the inheritance laws) relate to a local occurrence and should (I think) be read as references to the local House of Justice. Shoghi Effendi says that “the local as well as the international Houses of Justice have been expressly enjoined by the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.” The word “expressly” might be argued about, but the Universal House of Justice is at least inescapably implied by the terms of the Aqdas. It may well be that there are more implicit references to a universal House of Justice in Baha’u’llah’s writings, although I doubt the term “Universal House of Justice” is found there. If it was, it would surely have been highlighted already.
If we go beyond the writings of Baha’u’llah, the references to the Universal House of Justice are too many to count. Abdu’l-Baha for example says :
”To summarize, infallibility in essence is confined to the universal Manifestations of God and infallibility as an attribute is conferred upon sanctified souls. For instance, the Universal House of Justice, if it be established under the necessary conditions that is, if it be elected by the entire community that House of Justice will be under the protection and unerring guidance of God. Should that House of Justice decide, either unanimously or by a majority, upon a matter that is not explicitly recorded in the Book, that decision and command will be guarded from error.” (New – 2014? – Translation by the Bahai World Centre)
Abdu’l-Baha does not say explicitly in this paragraph that this is his interpretation of the Bahai teachings, but the context does say that. He had been asked about verse 47 of the Aqdas, and the whole answer is his explanation of that verse, and he introduces the Universal House of Justice in his answer. So I think that satisfies your expanded criterion of an interpretation of Abdu’l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi of something in the writings of Baha’u’llah.
Jim said
I’m very happy with those answers. Thank you!
“That is correct: the scope of their work is not limited to Bahais, or to the locality. Remember that this paragraph of the Aqdas is about the members of the *local* House of Justice …”
– Agreed.
“The decisions of the House of Justice however apply only to the Bahais.”
– Agreed. The decisions of national spiritual assemblies also.
“Shoghi Effendi says that ‘the local as well as the international Houses of Justice have been expressly enjoined by the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.’”
– That settles that question for me: The Universal House of Justice was prescribed by Baha’u’llah, and it’s easier for me now to think that the secondary ones were also.