|
From: <jricole@my-dejanews.com> Subject: service and its prerequisites Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 7:33 PM I think you have to make a distinction, which I know a lot of Baha'is feel it difficult to make, between questioning the legitimacy and integrity of the Universal House of Justice and questioning any particular action that any particular House of Justice has taken. There are lots of people who know a fair amount about the Baha'i faith and who simply reject it altogether, including rejecting both Baha'u'llah (as a fraud or misguided, etc.) and rejecting the Universal House of Justice along with him. I should think that is the most extreme "questioning" of the authority of the UHJ. Then there are people who accept Baha'u'llah but who reject the legitimacy of the Universal House of Justice. The mainstream Baha'is call these alternative Baha'is "covenant breakers." This is also a pretty extreme calling into question the legitimacy and authority of the UHJ. Then there are mainstream Baha'is who accept the legitimacy of the Universal House of Justice but who differ about some of the policies it adopts at any one time. Most Baha'is at least privately have some questions about some such policies, so this is not unusual. Then there are knee-jerk loyalists who think it wrong ever to question any least pronouncement, policy or action of the UHJ. Shoghi Effendi referred to such individuals as the "extreme orthodox," and condemned them. But they are very powerful in the current community. Many of them are essentially cultists. It isn't logical to ban questioning of policies. After all, the composition of the UHJ changes over time, and so do its policies. Baha'u'llah instructed the UHJ to make constant inquiries into the views and needs of the community. If it stood above the community so exaltedly as the "extreme orthodox" imagine, it would not need to do so. Some policies change for the bad, and then we have to let the UHJ know this. I can't remember the UHJ saying "boo!" to Baha'i academics in the 1960s and early 1970s, whereas in the 1990s it has deliberately tried to force a number of them out of the faith (and largely succeeded in this). There is a difference between the 2nd House of Justice, 1968-1973, which had liberals like David Ruhe and Hugh Chance on it, and the archconservative 7th & 8th Houses of Justice, of 1993-1998 and 1998- , on which deeply conservative individuals, many of whom are former Inquisitors as Counselors for Protection, predominate. Now, Shoghi Effendi said quite plainly that without a *living* Guardian, the UHJ would not have the means of precisely defining its legitimate sphere of action. That is, a guardianless House of Justice would occasionally blunder into an area not under its jurisdiction, and would have no living Guardian to rein it in. Shoghi Effendi was also explicit that occasionally the Guardian and the rest of the UHJ would differ on policy, and that the Guardian was not to arbitrarily over-rule the UHJ except when it strayed from Legislation into Interpretation. Members of the current, 8th UHJ are convinced that the Baha'i faith is a dogmatic religion, and that the UHJ has the authority to determine the dogma, which it may then impose on individual Baha'is. If these believers decline to be imposed upon, the UHJ may order the individuals silenced, sanctioned, or shunned. But Baha'u'llah was quite clear that the religion he was creating was *not* a religion of dogmas! Nor was he creating a vehicle for the silencing, sanctioning or shunning of members of the human race. He explicitly forbade the UHJ in Ishraq 8 from interfering in `ibadat or matters purely pertaining to scripture, and worship and private belief. He said they should concern themselves with matters of leadership or legalities (siyasat). The Guardian explained further that the scope of the UHJ was solely legislation. Thus, according to the explicit Baha'i texts, the UHJ is not to interfer in matters of worship, is not to intervene against a believer merely for conscientious speech, and is to stick to making laws. I am not aware that the UHJ has in fact made any laws at all, though that was supposed to be their function. Instead, they have done things like chase academics such as Dr. Linda Walbridge, a major anthropologist, out of the Baha'i faith for a few harmless emails; they have expelled Michael McKenny for his thoughtful and conscientious emails; they have attempted to dictate to Baha'i academics concerning academic methodology (even though none of the members of the UHJ has the slightest idea what that might be). They are clearly blundering around in the print world and in cyberspace like a bull in a china shop, making a mess of things and harming the reputation and fortunes of the Baha'i faith. And it is because they refuse to recognize that they are a mutilated body in need of the guidance of a living Guardian, which will be forever denied them. When we all accept that, we will be adults standing on our own two feet, exercising our portion of Universal Reason, just as Baha'u'llah predicted and desired. The policies of the UHJ have prevented literally hundreds of intelligent, capable, devoted Baha'i writers from arising to serve the faith with their pens. They have interfered with Baha'i artists and musicians in ways that discourage *them* from serving the faith. *Dialogue* magazine was a major service to the Cause, in the destruction of which the 4th UHJ played a major and sinister role. Well, the papacy has done a lot of stupid and sometimes criminal things over the centuries, too, but Catholicism survives and there are a lot of Catholics who forgive the past and try to work on the present and future. That the UHJ, a young institution less than 40 years old, shouldn't have found its footing yet, isn't really surprising. And, of course, the rigidity and narrow-mindedness of a lot of Baha'is tends to cause the more liberal-minded and capable ones to leave on a rolling basis, so you have a real problem of the recruitment pool for these institutions being rather limited, with often poor-quality candidates, some of whom are little more than secret cultists. So the point of my messages is never to "undermine" the Institution of the Universal House of Justice. It was ordained by Baha'u'llah, and when it *legislates* it should be obeyed. My purpose is to consult about rather severe problems in the deepening and evolvement of the community. There should be a place in the Baha'i faith for college teachers who actually say something interesting about the religion, rather than remaining silent or at risk of being forced out. How can you have a vibrant intellectual life that way? I once wrote the UHJ making this point, and they said they *agreed* with me. But then they went on to do enormous, though reparable damage, to this very process. My argument is that *consultation* is the basis of the Baha'i institutions in Baha'u'llah's teachings, not blind obedience (taqlid). Baha'u'llah *promotes* consultation, but condemns blind obedience. Baha'u'llah goes so far as to say that the very *basis* for the authority of the houses of justice is that they are consultative bodies. So, when a house of justice goes off arrogantly and half-cocked without consulting with the community, and especially with the most relevant or informed or affected portions of the community, it is undermining its own authority in the terms Baha'u'llah sets out. It is this *consultation* with the community that is the only hope of helping replace the guidance of a living Guardian. The Consensus (ijma`) of the living, contemporary Baha'i community must be recognized as a source of law and policy, and only in this way can the UHJ begin keeping its own activities within the legal bounds of its legitimate sphere of authority. Cyberspace has come along at precisely the right moment to allow such global consultation on the pressing issues facing the community. Of course, older Baha'is used to a more authoritarian style of administration will resist such freewheeling consultation, and attempt to preserve a top-down, dictatorial approach to authority. They will attempt to shut down open public discussion, depriving themselves, in the process, of the very views Baha'u'llah instructed them to seek out. But such flailing and thrashing about, complete with bluster and threats, the chasing out of capable, devoted believers, and other tragic mistakes, is a passing phase. The genie is out of the bottle, and the Baha'i faith will be a much better place as a result. cheers Juan -- Juan Cole, History, U of Michigan, jrcole@umich.edu https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm Buy *Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith* at: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0231110812/002-403 --== Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.--- Homepage |