The individual in society – Bahai perspectives

I’ve just read the article, “Human Nature and Human Society: A Baha’i Viewpoint” by William S. Hatcher (available here) where he sets out the Bahai teaching that human nature consists of both spiritual and material capacities. He stresses that in contrast to other religious traditions, Bahais do not believe in “original sin” (the Christian concept that we are born with bad parts that need to be overcome). He wrote: “Bahá’ís view all human capacities, whether physical or spiritual, as potentially helpful to the process of full, adequate, and proper development.” (page 29).

And there is solid support for this view in the Bahai Writings:

O SON OF BEING! Thou art My lamp and My light is in thee. Get thou from it thy radiance and seek none other than Me. For I have created thee rich and have bountifully shed My favor upon thee.” (Baha’u'llah, Hidden Words, Persian #11)
… With the hands of power I made thee and with the fingers of strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the essence of My light. … (Baha’u'llah, Hidden Words, Persian #12)

In short: “Man is the supreme Talisman” (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u'lláh, CXXII, pp. 259-260) born “in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26, English Standard Version (ESV)) with lots of potential and no bad bits. However, not all Bahais interpret the Bahai teachings in this manner, see this 1996 selection of quotations: “The Struggle Between the Material and Spiritual Natures of Man“ where the stress is the opposite. And the way the quotations in this selection are chosen and arranged strikes me as being influenced by conservative Christian perspectives. Just to give one example:
Then we must labor to destroy the animal condition, till the meaning of humanity shall come to light. (Baha’u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 34)

Selected in this manner is the impression that Baha’u'llah is stating that the animal (material) needs to be suppressed. Let’s look at the context for this quotation:
…At every moment he beholdeth a wondrous world, a new creation, and goeth from astonishment to astonishment, and is lost in awe at the works of the Lord of Oneness.
…
All these states are to be witnessed in the Valley of Wonderment, and the traveler at every moment seeketh for more, and is not wearied. Thus the Lord of the First and the Last in setting forth the grades of contemplation, and expressing wonderment hath said: “O Lord, increase my astonishment at Thee!”
Likewise, reflect upon the perfection of man’s creation, and that all these planes and states are folded up and hidden away within him.

Dost thou reckon thyself only a puny form
When within thee the universe is folded?

Then we must labor to destroy the animal condition, till the meaning of humanity shall come to light.
Thus, too, Luqmán, who had drunk from…” (Baha’u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 33-34) The text goes on to emphasise the importance of dreams.

It is difficult to work out what is specifically intended by the above text, but it certainly is not a Manichaean (material vs spiritual) perspective, given that it comes directly after a phrase in praise of human creation in holistic terms. It could mean that we must strive (use our intellect) not to act like animals or that we have to work hard to discover what being human is. To me Baha’u'llah here is most certainly presenting human creation as a good thing, not as a struggle between good and evil.

Another essay “Morality and Spiritual Growth” on Bahai.org refers to a transformation which is affected, in my view, by a holistic view of human nature: “Moral maturity thus comes from spiritual awareness. As stressed throughout the Bahá’í writings, the primary purpose of God in revealing His will through His Messengers is to effect a transformation in the moral and material conditions of human existence.”

I view “Spiritual awareness” as a holistic perspective (how one would define this is another matter, but there is no indication in the Bahai writings that ‘spiritual’ capacity competes or struggles with the material) because arguing from a differing perspective requires not only changing the context of the quotation but also going against other Bahai Teachings. Baha’u'llah wrote: “Out of the wastes of nothingness, with the clay of My command I made thee to appear, and have ordained for thy training every atom of existence and the essence of all created things.” so not only have we been created, without if and but clauses, but there are no taboes. Everything in the world is an aid for greater understanding.

Hatcher’s article then moves onto how “(t)he Bahá’í concept of morality–of behavioural norms and value choices– is closely linked to the Bahá’í concept of human nature and human purpose”. And summarizes this to mean: “That which tends to favour the development of human spiritual capacity is good, and that which tends to hinder it is bad”. (page 29)

On the face of it this summary might seem to be vague and tenuous, but personally I can’t think of a better way to express this because at the end of the day each of us must be responsible for our own actions and our own conscience, however when we are discussing social actions or society, or a particular Bahai community we need something more solid.
A stating point for a Bahai would be the Bahai teachings and that any Bahai Teaching should match or make sense with other Bahai Teachings. I don’t know if this is expressed as directly as this anywhere in Bahai Scripture but the following Bahai Teachings make a collective sense to me:

Science and Religion agree “And among the teachings of Bahá’u'lláh is, that religion must be in conformity with science and reason, so that it may influence the hearts of men.” (Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 299)

Independent investigation (reading and thinking for oneself and the freedom (and importance) of self expression “The members [of a Spiritual Assembly] thereof must take counsel together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.”(Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 87)

Progressive revelation (that religious teachings as much as society are in a continual process of development – the general attitude that things change for the better);

Equality (of all peoples, “Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men. From them are revealed such blessed and perspicuous words as are the cause of the well-being of the world and the protection of the nations.” (Baha’u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 13);

Unity in Diversity (to work together but not necessarily think nor act in the same ways and in fact many Bahais interpret this to mean to value diversity as a sign of a healthy society);
For another listing of Bahai Teachings see: “Eleven essentials: the Bahai principles as taught by Abdu’l-Baha in London” or scroll down for a list of Bahai Teachings written by Shoghi Effendi.

 
While the degree of in-born empathy can be disputted in the scientific world, there is no doubt that it is a trait humans are born with (for an example see the article: Tracing the Origins of Human Empathy).

Looking in history, when there have been examples of a lack of empathy, an ideology has had to be created in support of this. If empathy, an awareness of the other as equal or with equal rights was not something in-born, there would be no need to develop an ideology where some group is to be excluded: ideologies such as Nazism or in today’s world, the anti-gay (you will be respected only if you are celibate for your whole life, don’t tell anyone you are gay, or if you don’t identify yourself as gay) stance taken by some societies.

Baha’ullah’s entreaty (below) for justice and equality support the notion that empathy is so much a given human trait that you cannot have peaceful world without it. “We entreat God to deliver the light of equity and the sun of justice from the thick clouds of waywardness, and cause them to shine forth upon men. No light can compare with the light of justice. The establishment of order in the world and the tranquillity of the nations depend upon it.” (Baha’u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 28-29)
So Baha’u'llah argues for a society based on justice and equality. What else has Baha’u'llah written about the functioning of society? He wrote: “Our hope is that the world’s religious leaders and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. …. It is incumbent upon them who are in authority to exercise moderation in all things.” (Gleanings, p. 216)

Moderation, as it is addressed to leaders here, could mean aim for a middle way or to be tolerant so that, I assume, there’s room for more diversity, but I’ve come across Bahais using this passage as an argument that individuals must conform to a majority view or middle of the road perspective. As you can read for yourselves that is clearly not the intent. After all society or any particular Bahai community could never progress, adapt or develop if new ideas from individuals were to be suppressed. “Thoughts are a boundless sea, and the effects and varying conditions of existence are as the separate forms and individual limits of the waves; not until the sea boils up will the waves rise and scatter their pearls of knowledge on the shore of life. … ” Abdu’l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 109-110

Baha’u'llah’s text continues: “How long will humanity persist in its waywardness? How long will injustice continue? … (R)esolve to root out whatever is the source of contention amongst you. Then will the effulgence of the world’s great Luminary envelop the whole earth, and its inhabitants become the citizens of one city, and the occupants of one and the same throne. … There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed.”(page 216)

To summarize Baha’u'llah’s text: we come from the same source and when there is something that is unjust or that doesn’t make sense, we should resolve to get to the bottom of this and when we do, wonderful things will happen. Here is Abdul-Baha “[To ensure] freedom of conscience and tranquility of heart and soul is one of the duties and functions of government, and is in all ages the cause of progress in development and ascendency over other lands. Other civilized countries acquired not this preeminence, nor attained unto these high degrees of influence and power, till such time as they put away the strife of sects out of their midst, and dealt with all classes according to one standard. All are one people, one nation, one species, one kind. The common interest is complete equality; …” (Abdu’l-Baha, A Traveller’s Narrative, p. 87)

Humans need society and society needs the input of all voices if it is to be a society that reflects diversity. Again Hatcher expresses this very well: “We hold that it is impossible for an individual to develop his or her spiritual capacities in abstraction from the process by which others are developing their spiritual capacities. In other words, it is through the creation of a just, unified, and progressive social order that spiritual capacities can best be developed.”
The very argument, I’d say, for doing our very best to include our gay brothers and sisters in Bahai community life. In fact, I am convinced that one reason why Bahais write awful things such as “being gay is a spiritual disease” is due to an imbalance of their own ideas about what is a healthy society (“And among the teachings of His Holiness Bahá’u'lláh is justice and right. Until these are realized on the plane of existence, all things shall be in disorder and remain imperfect” (Abdu’l-Baha, Tablet to the Hague, p. 8-9)). They have put gays into an ‘another category’ of humanity and called this diseased. Other Bahai’s tell me that they are being neutral by saying “it’s a complex issue” when in fact it is very simple. A community or society acts according to the principles of justice and equality or it doesn’t. And a community, in particular any Bahai community, should in my view, encourage and stimulate “the realm of conscience [where] naught but the ray of God’s light can command,” (Abdu’l-Baha, A Traveller’s Narrative, p. 39) so that each individual acts as “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression” (Baha’u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 93). In a nutshell it is up to each individual – our conscience doesn’t work in any other way.

 

Bahai Teachings
“The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of human kind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind — these stand out as the essential elements of that Divine polity which He proclaimed to leaders of public thought as well as to the masses at large in the course of these missionary journeys.”
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 281-2)”

The Universal House of Justice membership and related topics

Detail of a graph at the bottom of Baquia’s blog: Universal House of Justice: Results of By-Election

“Bahai Rants” began in December 2004 and I wrote more about this here.

In March 2010 Baquia wrote a blog in response to two new members being elected to the Universal House of Justice and noted that both had been previously members of the International Teaching Centre, to which they had been appointed to by the UHJ itself.
B’s statement:
“The most important trend is that we have, since 2008, a membership drawn completely from the ITC – which itself is appointed by the Universal House of Justice. So in essence, there is a closed loop with the UHJ appointing its future candidates”
is supported by a graph showing the history of the membership of the Universal House of Justice, a detail of which is above. The orange sections indicate the individuals who were previously members of the ITC.

Below are a few of my comments that I posted on Bahai rants. Each post has a link back to its location on Bahai rants, should you wish to read the other responses surrounding this and you can make your response there.
Responses here are moderated, mainly for practical reasons: I couldn’t cope the traffic that the Bahai Rants blog has. Also my purpose on the blog is just to have a reference for my own responses on particular topics. I am not looking at creating a forum or community. So if you wish to be 100% sure your response is aired, then post it on Bahai Rants. Posting it on Bahai Rants means I’m likely to find it there and even better, you would have the bonus of feedback from the diversity of a community.

Sonja’s comment posted on 2 April 2010
So L, I’m one of “the rest of the Bahais” [you refer to] and I’m all for nuance, diversity, open debate, change, and going to the source of the Writings (as much as is possible and in ways which will always involve flexibility and change) till the day I drop.

In a nutshell, what I think we lost with not having the guardianship, is flexibility. Look at Shoghi Effendi’s own writings, how one of his main missions seemed to be to limit and to spread power.
Getting back Baquia’s original blog here, I think one of the problems of the elected becoming more and more, it seems, a consequence of being appointed is a loss of flexibility that comes with new blood and differing views. Locally, what is happening is that now individuals appointed by the NSA or by cluster things or by the Ruhi system, are managing things where previously elected bodies such as the LSAs did this. I haven’t done my homework on this, so it would be good hear from others of their experiences on this change from the elected to the appointed at local community levels.

And finally, when the first UHJ was to be elected, the Hands of the Cause (who had been appointed) informed everyone that they were not eligible for election, thus keeping in the spirit of openenss and new blood. The UHJ could easily announce that members of the ITC cannot be elected onto the UHJ if they wanted to. It could help keep a balance of the appointed and the elected distinctive. A feature I think Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi intended.

Sonja’s comment posted on 4 April 2010
I wrote: “The UHJ could easily announce that members of the ITC cannot be elected onto the UHJ if they wanted to. It could help keep a balance of the appointed and the elected distinctive.
A feature I think Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi intended.”

L wrote: “Interesting idea could you support it?”

My response: The differences between the appointed and elected institutions, and ways they complement each other, have been worked out in many UHJ messages, but they derive ultimately from the fact the Will and Testament refers to both the Guardianship and the Hands (appointed), and the Houses of Justice (elected). That already indicated a complementary relationship with different roles, which Shoghi Effendi then detailed in his World Order letters.
For example:
“It must be also clearly understood by every believer that the institution of Guardianship does not under any circumstances abrogate, or even in the slightest degree detract from, the powers granted to the Universal House of Justice by Bahá’u'lláh in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, and repeatedly and solemnly confirmed by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will. It does not constitute in any manner a contradiction to the Will and Writings of Bahá’u'lláh, nor does it nullify any of His revealed instructions. It enhances the prestige of that exalted assembly, stabilizes its supreme position, safeguards its unity, assures the continuity of its labors, without presuming in the slightest to infringe upon the inviolability of its clearly-defined sphere of jurisdiction.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 8 )

“An attempt, I feel, should at the present juncture be made to explain the character and functions of the twin pillars that support this mighty Administrative Structure — the institutions of the Guardianship and of the Universal House of Justice. … these twin institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u'lláh should be regarded as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. Acting in conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer its affairs, coordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its laws and defend its subsidiary institutions. Severally, each operates within a clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction; each is equipped with its own attendant institutions — instruments designed for the effective discharge of its particular responsibilities and duties. Each exercises, within the limitations imposed upon it, its powers, its authority, its rights and prerogatives. These are neither contradictory, nor detract in the slightest degree from the position which each of these institutions occupies. Far from being incompatible or mutually destructive, they supplement each other’s authority and functions, and are permanently and fundamentally united in their aims…. ”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 147-8 )

and lots more, see

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-40.html

–

L then wrote: “if the master was against the appointed serving on the UJH why did he make the Guardian (an appointed person) a life time member of the UHJ? it seems that he had no problem with a member of the appointed serving on the UHJ. and none of the experts provided suggest otherwise. Im sorry but no where do they say that the appointed should not be elected to the UHJ in these quotes provided. Could you post some that do please?”

my response: I was explaining the principle of having the elected and the appointed as “twin pillars that support this mighty Administrative Structure” (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 8 ) and in support of this principle, I gave the example of how the Hands of Cause chose not to make themselves available for election to the UHJ. I saw their action as meaning, they saw the need for new blood as a good thing. Perhaps they even thought that being appointed and in the public positions each of them had, that unless they did this, they would have been elected to the UHJ?
Of course, I have no idea what their motive was, all I am saying is that they did this and my suggestion is that if the members of the ITC chose to do this, this would help maintain this principle of having the elected and the appointed as complimentary aspects of the Bahai administration.

L: the source for this is:
“The Hands of the Cause in their message of November 4, 1961, referred to the election of the Universal House of Justice in these terms:
“That all male voting members throughout the Bahá’í world are eligible for election to the Universal House of Justice. The Hands do not limit the freedom of the electors. However, as they have been given the explicit duties of guarding over the security and ensuring the propagation of the Faith, they ask the electors of the House of Justice to leave them free at this time to discharge their duties. When that Supreme and Infallible Body has been elected, it will decide on all matters concerning its own membership.”
(Custodians, Ministry of the Custodians, p. 392)

At the moment what is happening at the highest level of the Bahai administration is that individuals are being appointed by the UHJ to the ITC, and then the males of the ITC are being elected to UHJ. The issue is that membership of the UHJ has become a result of the UHJ chosen appointments. Given that membership on the UHJ is a matter of just 9 members, my suggestion is: if the UHJ decided to make ITC members ineligible or if members of the ITC chose to make themselves ineligible, then surely there are plenty of other males perfectly suitable to serve on the UHJ. That’s my suggestion based on the above thinking. I am not suggesting it is bad to have appointed members of the ITC move to the UHJ, but when since 2008 (see Baquia’s graph) ALL NINE members of the UHJ come from the ITC, then it indicates that the electoral process is not bringing in any new blood. Here’s just one of the many quotations in the Bahai writings on the importance of new blood.

“Upon the local Assemblies, whose special function and high privilege is to facilitate the admission of new believers into the community, and thereby stimulate the infusion of fresh blood into its organic institutions,…”
(Shoghi Effendi, Messages to America, p. 11)

Sonja’s comment posted on 5 April 2010
in response to:
Surly you must have some excerpt that supports your claim that Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi did not intend for members of the appointed to serve on the UHJ

L: Please read my posts more carefully, I wrote:

“It could help keep a balance of the appointed and the elected distinctive.
A feature I think Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi intended.”

The second sentence refers to the former sentence, a balance. The point of my responses has been to see how the principle of this balance could work better.

re: your idea that the Guardian was intended to be a member of the UHJ:

Abdu’l-Baha wrote in the Will and Testament:
“By this body [the UHJ] all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body. Should he not attend in person its deliberations, he must appoint one to represent him.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 14)

From this we can see that the Guardian is not eligible for election (he is appointed), and that he is not just a member of the UHJ, since he can appoint someone else to represent him. It is not stated that the Guardian does not have a vote on the UHJ, but this is implied, first because nothing is said about whether the Guardian’s representative would have a vote, and second because that would mean there are ten votes rather than nine, which would be allow for the possibility of a 5-5 split. I’d say that it’s unlikely that Abdu’l-Baha would discard the symbolism of 9, and raise the possibility of a hung vote, by making the UHJ a ten-member body.

Instead it seems, in preserving this principle of the distinctions of the elected and appointed, the Guardian or his representative who could have been a woman, would not be a member of the UHJ but rather that s/he sat at meetings and participated, and most likely did not have a say in the final decisions that would be made.

Why I made this blog

The following is a letter I sent to my NSA and the individual who made the comment about the email I had posted on the Dutch Bahai e-list. I think it is self-explanatory.
—
5 September 2009

Dear PP and the members of the National Assembly of the Bahais of the Netherlands,

I am writing in English because I experienced a case of my words in Dutch, being misinterpreted by PP on the “berichten-bahai lijst” (a Dutch language email bahai list). If I had been able to correct this misinterpretation of my words on the same list this would not be a problem, but then my email address was blocked, so I could not respond and correct the false impression left with the readers. My emails to the person in charge of the email list got no response, so I was left in the dark as to why my emails to the list were being rejected, while other emails were being posted to the list.

Then on Friday, September 4th, I asked a Dutch Bahai to forward my response to the list on my behalf. She did this and then forwarded me a letter that the N.S.A. had sent to all members of this Bahai list, informing everyone that the list is now closed to input from individuals. Emails from others on the same list had come through until Thursday, so I assume that only I was blocked from sending messages in the past week. Since I did not get the letter the NSA sent to the berichten list on Friday evening, I guess that I have been removed from the list.

It is now clear to me that after PP’s response to me on the list, someone decided that I had no right of response. I see this as going against Bahai principle of justice, because now readers on that list will think that PP’s misinterpretation of my intention is correct. Dutch is a second language for me, so that’s why I didn’t see that the words could be interpreted in the way that PP did. I’m not upset with PP, but I think it is unjust that I have no chance to correct the impression he has given of my words, and that whoever first blocked me, and later removed me, from the Berichten list should have informed me, and checked the facts, which would have given me a chance to correct any misunderstandings. It is my understanding that consultation and justice are important principles of the Bahai community.

Given that there was no response to my emails and that I was not sent the letter sent to others on the list informing everyone that input to the list is now closed, the best solution to this situation is to send you the response that was blocked, so that you will know what I had intended by the words ‘maar alleen’ (in English this means ‘but only’ which given the context of the sentence, does not indicate a lesser value).

I would appreciate it if a message could go to the Berichten list saying that I was blocked from posting to the list on Sunday August 30th, and that I had wished to correct a misunderstanding of my words and regret not being able to do so.

In the spirit of openness, which is very important to me, I am also posting this (with names and emails deleted) on a blog, so anyone can read this for themselves.

I am doing this, not as a form of protest but in the spirit of openness and what seems to me as the wisest course of action in response to what has happened.

The Bahai Faith is a fantastic religion and has nothing to hide.

“It is likewise so in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail, that is to say, when every man according to his idealization may give utterance to his own beliefs development and growth are inevitable.”

(‘Abdul-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 3, No. 10, p. 19)

For me the Bahai principle of independent investigation means that individuals, any individual, may have access, as much as is feasible or possible, to the source of things themselves so that they may decide for themselves. And so anyone is free to read the text here: justabahai.wordpress.com

I am also putting all of this online on a blog because I have seen how rumours and backbiting about issues or people can be so destructive. Bahais need to be able to check the facts, ask questions, express themselves, discuss issues and change their views as a result of the discussion (myself included of course). Forums for discussion are a vital part of any community.

I am sorry to see the berichten list closed to individual input and discussion. If the problem had been because of my response to PP or because of my original posting sent a day earlier, then, if I had been informed that ‘berichten’ was not the forum for discussing issues related to homosexuality and the Bahai writings, I would not have posted on this topic in that case.

Yours sincerely,

Sonja van Kerkhoff
–

The following is the email that was blocked from the Dutch Bahai e-list
(Click anywhere on the Dutch text for the English translation)

Hoi Iedereen,

Sinds zondag worden mijn emails aan de berichten-lijst geweigerd, dus heb ik JJ gevraagt als zij dit email namens mij aan dit lijst wilt sturen.

Bedankt aan iedereen voor de reacties op mijn email. Als ik weer toegang krijg, zou ik aan hun reageren.

Bedankt voor jouw reactie PP, Je schreef:

“Los van het onderwerp dat je wilt aansnijden, ben ik het niet eens met je zin formulering en de strekking er van: “Iets dat niet in de Geschriften van….staat, MAAR ALLEEN in de brieven namens Shoghi Effendi en in de brieven van het Universele Huis van gerechtigheid.”

Sorry, mijn ‘maar alleen’ was helemaal niet zo bedoeld. Bedoeld was, dat de teksten expliciet over homoseksualiteit zijn ALLEMAAL of brieven namens Shoghi Effendi of brieven van het Universele Huis van Gerechtigheid. De verschillende soorten teksten hebben elke hun eigen regels voor het lezen en toepassen. Als een groep teksten allemaal brieven van Shoghi Effendi zijn, zouden we hetzelfde principes op die toepassen.

Een brief namens Shoghi Effendi zegt over deze brieven: “their style [is] certainly not the same, and their authority less” (voor tekst omheen en bron zie onderaan) – dat hun autoriteit is minder dan dat van wat Shoghi Effendi zelf schreef.

Maar wat betekent ‘minder’ autoriteit? Dat ze zijn niet woord voor woord van Shoghi Effendi is duidelijk, maar is hun autoriteit dan ook zo algemeen als de woorden van Shoghi Effendi, of een autoriteit voor de onmiddellijk handelen van degene die een vraag had gesteld, in die situatie?

Shoghi Effendi zei ook dat hij had zelf geen wetgevende macht. Als men zegt dat een brief namens Shoghi Effendi geldt als regel voor alle Bahai’s voor altijd, is het dus ‘de wet’ op hetzelfde niveau als de woorden van Baha’u’llah. Maar kan een secretaris van Shoghi Effendi een wetgevende macht heb, als Shoghi Effendi die macht niet heeft? Zou zo’n toepassing de bedoeling van Shoghi Effendi kunnen zijn?

De brieven van de UHG geven ons regels voor het handelen, maar wat de UHG een keer zegt, kan het later ook veranderen. Shoghi Effendi schreef dat “flexibility” is een van de redenen waarom wij een UHG hebben (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 148). Omdat de brieven van het UHG over ons huidige handelen gaan, en niet over de interpretatie van het Bahai leer, kunnen we over de verschillende mogelijkheiden discussiëren (bijv. toekomstige houding met homohuwelijk), zonder dat we het autoriteit of waardigheid van het UHG verminderen. Ik heb nog verder gedachten, onderbouwd met citaten, in het engels geschreven hier:

…I have written further ideas, supported with quotations, in English below:

Bahais accept the Bahai Writings as being only that authored by The Bab, Baha’u'llah and ‘Adbul-Baha. And Shoghi Effendi’s own writing only defines the Bahai teachings where it interprets the Bahai Scriptures.

So let’s start with the Kitab-i-Aqdas as we have it in English because it is the only place in a text of Bahai Scripture where there is something concerning homosexuality mentioned.

In the preface to this book it is written by the Universal House of Justice or the Research department (no author is given in the 1992 edition for the preface) that:

“In 1953 Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, included as one of the goals of his Ten Year Plan the preparation of a Synopsis and Codification of the Laws and Ordinances of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas as an essential prelude to its translation. He himself worked on the codification, but had not finished it when he died in 1957. The task was continued on the basis of his work, and the resulting volume was released in 1973. That publication included, in addition to the Synopsis and Codification itself and explanatory notes, a compilation of the passages from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas which had already been translated by Shoghi Effendi and published in various books.”

The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. vii

Nothing indicates which parts where penned by Shoghi Effendi in his role as interpretator of the Baha’u'llah’s Writings and what was not written by him, so we have to take all text apart from what is in the Aqdas as either something the UHJ is interpreting, which we know they cannot do or as commentary open for debate, even should the UHJ then decide that some point in the commentary is now to be law they have legislated on. I make this point, because even should the UHJ make a law to legislate that, for example, same sex marriage is forbidden by Bahais, we as Bahais would still be free to discuss and debate this. The laws that the UHJ makes one year, it can also change next year. Obedience to laws doesn’t mean silence. And of course, if Bahais may not discuss or debate laws the UHJ have made, well, that leaves very little room for the Bahai principle of independent investigation, let alone the possibility for Bahai communities to address or relate or to understand these laws.

So now to the text of the Aqdas as it is in the 1992 edition in English:

“We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys.”

Baha’u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 58

And now to what is in the notes to the Aqdas. The Research department or the UHJ have written in the notes section:

” 134. the subject of boys # 107

The word translated here as “boys” has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations. The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.
In a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi it is stated:

No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá’u'lláh, and homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being against nature. To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.
Bahá’u'lláh makes provision for the Universal House of Justice to determine, according to the degree of the offence, penalties for adultery and sodomy (Q and A 49).”

ibid, p. 223

So let’s assume this is the voice of the UHJ of the early 1990s because this publication is considered an official document by the Bahai Administration. That the UHJ state “Shoghi Effendi has interpreted” and then refer a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, indicates that they are treating letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if Shoghi Effendi himself wrote them. The letter they quote above does not have a reference to anything in Bahai Scripture and the letter does not state that it is an interpretation. This is very important if we are serious about what really is part of unchangeable Bahai Scripture and what isn’t.

Unfortunately Shoghi Effendi never penned anything himself in regards to the status of these letters written on his behalf, except I assume, when he must have been annoyed enough to ask a secretary to write the following:

“I wish to call your attention to certain things in “Principles of Bahá’í Administration” which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá’u'lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá’u'lláh’s Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá’u'lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.”

Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260

What this doesn’t tell us, is whether the ‘authority’ of the letters by secretaries is an extension of the Guardian’s executive authority as head of the Faith — meaning, “it must be obeyed by the addresse” or of the Guardian’s authority as authorised interpreter of the writings, meaning “they become part of the sacred text.” What we can say is there is nothing explicit to indicate that a letter by a secretary can share in the Guardian’s unique role as authorised interpreter. There is also nothing explicit to say that the Guardian’s secretaries do not share the authority of interpretation. However the phrase “their authority less” seems to suggest this, because an exective authority can be greater or less, direct or indirect, can apply to a local or individual situation or to all Bahai communities, but when the Guardian interprets scripture that interpretation becomes part of the scripture concerned.

If something is considered part of the Bahai Writings, it cannot be changed. That is, sex with children can never be OK in Bahai law, because this is part of what Baha’u'llah’s text in the Aqdas. All the texts in the notes have been penned by others and unless the texts in the notes refer to quotations from the Bahai Scripture themselves, they are all open to change by the UHJ. I would also imagine that if the UHJ were to make a law, that it would clearly state that it was making a law. So in my view, it is unclear to me what the actual status is of the texts in the notes section. I make this point because in 1992 when the Aqdas was first printed in English a list of corrections was distributed about 6 months later. In regards to the Aqdas, the corrections were minor things like typos, but in the notes, sometimes a whole paragraph was deleted, such as in note 108. I can only assume that this paragraph no longer reflects the position or thinking of the UHJ whereas at an earlier time it did.

The UHJ is free to change the texts of the notes as it wishes. Perhaps this could be seen as them making laws? I don’t know. Rather than debating whether or not the UHJ make law when they make statements in official Bahai documents, I prefer to focus on the principle of Bahai Law as I understand it, in general behind this. That is, anything UHJ decides or states is subject to change by a later UHJ. If any statement on the wrongs of homosexuality is by UHJ, then it is subject to change.

– gr. sonja

The English section above is more or less what I wrote a few weeks ago here:
http://bahairants.com/change-is-a-law-of-nature-666.html#comment-15258238

–

Below is my original post to the e-list which PP responded to.

zaterdag 29 augustus 2009 16:04
To:
Berichten

Subject: [Berichten] Ze denken zeker dat God gek is… > gelijkwaardigheid

over het thema “diversiteit”

Wat momenteel voor mij van belang is gaat over het ongelijke behandelen van homo’s in de bahai gemeenschap.

Iets dat niet in de Geschrijften van De Bab, Baha’u'llah, Adul-Baha of de
officiele interpretaties van Shoghi Effendi staat, maar alleen in de brieven geschreven namens Shoghi Effendi en in de brieven van de UHG.

Trouwens voor iemand mij kwalijk neemt, bahais mogen andere meningen dan Het Universele Huis van Gerechtigheid hebben en ook discusseren. Gehoorzaamheid is niet hetzelfde als stilte van gedachte. Maar meer belangrijk Het Universele Huis van Gerechtigheid kan alleen flexibel werken als Bahais over alles discusseren en proberen hun religie in relatie
met hun omgeving te brengen.

Ik heb dit in engels geintroduceerd onder thema “Change is a Law of Nature”
hier >>

http://bahairants.com/change-is-a-law-of-nature-666.html

een commentaar van mij op wat in de Aqdas staat hier
>>

http://bahairants.com/change-is-a-law-of-nature-666.html#comment-15258238

een commentaar op het idee dat an Het Universele Huis van Gerechtigheid
heeft een wet erover gemaakt:

http://bahairants.com/change-is-a-law-of-nature-666.html#comment-15015696

een commentaar over het bahai principe dat wij de wetten van ons land
moeten gehoorzamen (en een beetje over ideeen over de rol van
religieuze wetten)

http://bahairants.com/change-is-a-law-of-nature-666.html#comment-15264399

Ik ben benieuwd hoe Bahais in nederland hierover, want ik heb geen flauw
idee. Mijn homo kennisen hier in nederland hebben helemaal geen behoefte aan een religie die hun discrimineert. Mijn enige homo Bahai kennisen wonen in andere landen waar de meerderheid zijn opgegroeid in een bahai gezin.

Jaren geleden had ik voor het laatst iets over dit onderwerp op deze lijst geschreven en de reactie van een aantal was dat zij vonden dit geen onderwerp voor de berichten lijst was. Ik hoop dat dat niet meer het geval is, maar, geen zorg, ik laat dit liggen als dat de mening van deze groep is.
En zorg niet, voor mij is dit een heel belangrijk onderwerp maar ik respecteer dat voor anderen dit geen belangrijk onderwerp is.

gr. Sonja

—

October 2009

Just prior to this phone call in October 2009, a Bahai told me that my response had been posted to the list on the morning it was closed down, but because I was blocked from the list I was unaware of this.

Dear X

Thank you for your phone call inviting me for a meeting with you and another person on behalf of the N.S.A. of the Netherlands.

As I understand it, this is in response to my letter sent to the N.S.A. on September 5th, concerning my removal from the “berichten” list and the banning of my messages to the list.

I asked on the phone if my husband could also be at this meeting and found it confusing that you said no, I could only come to this alone, but also told me this was not a condition for the meeting. That made me realise that already there is some miscommunication. That is also why I repeated the question whether this was an “eis” (condition) twice to be sure.

So, for the sake of clarity, I am replying in a letter for the N.S.A., which I hope will be less confusing.

I was hurt and surprised that you told me my husband, Sen McGlinn was not allowed to be present at the meeting. I was surprised because in the past when Sen had a meeting with the counsellors and asked if I could be present, there was no objection.

In our family we consult and as a married couple it is our choice, where possible to do important things together. I saw this meeting as something important.

This is the main reason I see little point in a meeting. The second reason is that it is not clear to me what this meeting is about.

Assuming that it is in response to my letter and that my questions were not clear, I’ll rephrase them here.

Since I wrote that letter I have learnt that my message was sent to the “berichten-lijst,” only I did not know this because I had been removed. Since readers to the list could have seen my response to PP’s comments, for me the matter is closed. I’ve had a chance to correct the misunderstanding for the list members.
As I understand it, I am now blocked from the berichten list, if it exists. I have no idea. Of course, it is not the responsibility of the N.S.A. to inform me, but as a member of your Bahai community I’d appreciate being informed if:

1. I am blocked from this list forever
2. What do I need to do to join or what conditions I need to follow to be able to join

I realise the members of the N.S.A. are very busy people and I
appreciate this, so of course, I am not demanding a response.

I will assume if there is no response that I am blocked from the
‘berichten lijst’ forever and will make no further attempts to join. And so there is no concern for the N.S.A. I also will not make any attempts to participate in any future Dutch language email groups or forums either.

The comments that I originally made on the “berichten lijst,” in
response to an individual’s comments in favour of openness, was an attempt to discuss the issue of homosexuality in a Bahai context, in the hope of of increasing understanding and hearing other Bahais’ views. It is clear to me because I was immediately blocked from responding, that this is not welcome as a topic at this time. I am sure that are many reasons for this, and it is not my place to speculate why.

I hope my comments were not the reason the list was shut down as I do think discussion and consultation are very important. This is why I am stating that I will not participate in any Dutch language Bahai e- list again. To me it is more important that Dutch Bahais talk to each other on various issues than that I am involved.

Life is very good and as a Bahai I feel blessed, so even though I am removing myself from the possibility of any Dutch Bahai e-list. so the N.S.A. does not have to remove me, should that be a concern. It does not mean that I feel any less a Bahai. There are many ways of doing service.

In the spirit of openess, I will also put this on my blog and so
everyone will know I have chosen to remove myself from any Dutch Bahai e-lists or discussions. In the same spirit of openness you are free to share this letter and my letter of September 5th with anyone.

yours sincerely,

Sonja van Kerkhoff

Introduction

“Love is a light that never dwelleth in a heart possessed by fear”

Baha’u'llah, The Four Valleys, p. 58

I am an artist and a Bahai living in the Netherlands. I’ve started this blog in response to being blocked from a Dutch Bahai e-list (August 30th 2009). My first blog says more about this, and about the topic I was discussing at the time: homosexuality and the Bahai writings.

Misunderstandings can happen, and it certainly was painful to me that I was silenced from this list. This blog is an attempt at a constructive response to the situation.
An attempt at what the Bahai teachings inspire in me. It is an attempt at openness, dialogue and discussion, to show that even mistakes or misinterpretations are not dangerous. In fact I’d argue that freedom of expression (bearing in mind of course respect for particular contexts) is a Bahai principle.

It is likewise so in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail, that is to say, when every man according to his idealization may give utterance to his own beliefs development and growth are inevitable.

‘Abdul-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 3, No. 10, p. 19

Rumours or backbiting about issues or people are destructive. In fact in the Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u'llah, Bahais are told to

“regard backbiting as grievous error, and keep himself aloof from its dominion, inasmuch as backbiting quencheth the light of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul.”

(p. 265).

So I will monitor comments and delete any that backbite as well as any rants against the Bahai Faith. I intend this blog to be for discussion or debate on Bahai-related topics. Anonymous comments are welcome! Just type in ‘sss’ as your name and ‘sss@sss.nl’ as your email address.