I do appreciate to read what you have to say on the same subject. Thanks so much for sharing your ideas.
Dear Firouz, Well, I haven't written a whole lot on it because my own conception of infallibility is still somewhat (and maybe always will be)amorphous. Anything I write on the topic is still a work in progress. The problem I have with Schaefer's conception is that I think it largely misses the point and is too legalistic. He's a lawyer and sees the issue of infallibility in legalistic terms. While this might make sense given that the House's sphere is primarily that of legislation, the term ismat means, as Mark has said sinlessness. Like Mark I think it refers to their ability to reflect the will of God. But given that fact, I don't think it makes sense to simply confine it to certain narrow functions. That would suggest it is a form of propositional inerrancy rather than a moral and existential category as I think ismat implies. If you recall Dr. Schaefer's argument he separates infallibility from divine guidance. I do not. Whatever I understand about the operation of divine guidance is what I understand about infallibility as well. It seems to me that the problems Dr. Schaefer finds in having too rigid an interpretation of infallibility apply just as much in the legislative sphere as they do in other administrative and judicial areas in which Schaefer does not think the House is infallible. For instance, I'm inclined to believe that a legislative decision can be made on the basis of misinformation as much as an administrative decision, and just as much be changed on the basis of new information. I note that part of Dr. Schaefer's concern is an apologetic one which I share; that we not conceive of the the doctrine of infallibility in ways which are logically absurd and subject to falsification. But I really have to ask whether or not restricting infallibility to the legislative sphere only really achieves that purpose. What I think it instead leads to is endless speculations as to which of the House's decisions constitute legislation and therefore justifying the challenging of decisions which are defined not to be so. This is pretty much what Catholics do when they debate endlessly as to whether a certain Papal decision comes from the "chair of Peter." While, Dr. Schaefer affirms that this has nothing to do with the House's authority in all areas, and that they must be obeyed regardless, it should be recognized that this "obedience" is being taken a very literalistic fashion at present. For instance, if the House itself hasn't explicitly told someone to shut up, they continue to consider it their prerogative to publicly criticize the decisions of the Supreme Institution and thereby undermine its authority. Also, it is not at all clear to me that some of the acts which Udo Schaefer understands to be legislation are in fact that. For instance, Udo Schaefer considers the declaration that there can never be another Guardian to be an act of legislation. But the House itself considered it to be an "elucidation," one of the few instances where I have seen them refer to one of their acts as such. It also seems to me that the restriction of the infallibility of the House of Justice to legislative does not coincide very well with their own self-understanding. For instance, Schaefer seems to see only the Guardian and not the House as infallible in protection matters. But here is what the House has to say in regards to this: "the Universal House of Justice shares with the Guardian the responsibility for the application of the revealed word, the protection of the Faith, as well as the duty "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." However, the Universal House of Justice is not omniscient; like the Guardian, it wants to be provided with facts when called upon to render a decision, and like him it may well change its decision when new facts emerge. . . . " http://bahai-library.org/uhj/infall.uhj.html That certainly suggests to me that the House regarded its own authority as identical with the Guardian in this area. Now if indeed, the infallibility of the House is restricted to legislation one could conceivably argue that they are wrong here. But I feel very nervous when it comes to questioning the House's own self-understanding. After all, virtually everything we believe about 'Abdu'l-Baha's own infallibility is derived from statements in which He expressed His own self-understanding. "Why the House does not write anything about this subject?" Well, they have written some things which I quote above, just not anything comprehensive. I think there are probably three reasons for this. First, this may be an areas of interpretation wherein the House has no authority to rule. Second, I'm not sure there is sufficient unanimity among the House members on this topic to make a comprehensive statement. Certainly all of them believe in the infallibility of the House but I don't sense that they all agree as to what is meant by this. For instance, nearly a decade before Doug Martin was elected to the House of Justice, for instance, I remember him insisting that each and everything the House said was infallible, by which I think he meant proposiitonal inerrancy. On the other hand, I've gotten a very different impression of Ian Semple's views. Third, I don't think think the House really wants people picking over their statements and debating what is infallible or not. That is just likely to undermine their authority. They want people to listen to what they have to say and follow their guidance. At the request of an Auxiliary Board Member I once wrote something up about what I thought was the distinction between elucidation and authoritative interpretation. I'm putting that below, for your information. It may explain some of my views a little further. Also, see the article on infallibility on my website. warmest, Susan Elucidation and Authorized Interpretation The term elucidation appears to be derived from the passage in the Will and Testament wherein the House is said "to ... deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book." In other words, elucidation means clarifying 'questions that are obscure.' But it doesn't appear that this elucidation applies to anything interpretation that the House may make on any topic whatsoever. In fact, the House insists that elucidation is an extension of their legislative power. "The elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function, while the interpretations of the Guardian represent the true intent inherent in the Sacred Texts." As near as I can tell it appears restricted to a very limited form of interpretation as it involves the application of Baha'i law or policy decisions. I've never seen the term used in connection with doctrinal matters, though the House does sometimes comment on these. In other words, I'm under the impression that elucidation is closer to jurisprudence than it is to authoritative interpretation. Here are the specific examples where I've seen the term elucidation applied to decisions of the House of Justice: 1. The decision that the House was not empowered to appoint another Guardian or Hands of the Cause. 2. The reiteration that women cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice. 3. Note the following in regards to divorce laws: There is a Tablet from 'Abdu'l-Bahá which states that the year of waiting is waived in the case of an unfaithful wife. This aspect of the Bahá'í law of divorce, however, will need elucidation and supplementary legislation by the Universal House of Justice. (Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities) 4. The House also includes under elucidation, "the outlining of such steps as are necessary to establish the World Order of Baha'u'llah on this earth." I take it from this that the Plans as well as the rulings of the House in regards to matters like the proper relationship between religion and state constitute elucidations. I suppose the House saying things like we are in the X epoch of the Formative Age, may constitute elucidation as well. The Guardian's own statements seem to support this: "And as we make an effort to demonstrate that love to the world may we also clear our minds of any lingering trace of unhappy misunderstandings that might obscure our clear conception of the exact purpose and methods of this new world order, so challenging and complex, yet so consummate and wise. We are called upon by our beloved Master in His Will and Testament not only to adopt it unreservedly, but to unveil its merit to all the world. To attempt to estimate its full value, and grasp its exact significance after so short a time since its inception would be premature and presumptuous on our part. We must trust to time, and the guidance of God's Universal House of Justice, to obtain a clearer and fuller understanding of its provisions and implications." 23 February 1924 Touching the point raised in the Secretary's letter regarding the nature and scope of the Universal Court of Arbitration, this and other similar matters will have to be explained and elucidated by the Universal House of Justice, to which, according to the Master's explicit instructions, all important and fundamental questions must be referred. (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 47) Note that in the above matter Shoghi Effendi appears to regard it as a matter of elucidation as not within his own scope of authoritative interpreter and belonging instead to the sphere of the Universal House of Justice. Obviously, he did some though, or we wouldn't have the World Order Letters. In regards to the authoritative interpretations of the Guardian, I think it is interesting that very rarely do we see the Guardian as interpreting a specific passage in scripture. More often he expounds the Teachings generally and uses the Writings as a proof text. Of course authoritative interpretations certainly enter into the Guardian's translations but he didn't seem to think that made them infallible. What I gather from this is that authoritative interpretation seems to have more to do with knowing Baha'u'llah's intentions in a general sense more so than, this passage means this or that. __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
