Brent Poirier
Mon, 23 May 2005 07:28:01 -0700
>>Have you ever seen any decision by the Universal House of Justice, that >>forbids us to promote the inclusion of Women on the Universal House of >>Justice, or a Guardian after Shoghi Effendi, or any other view in particular?>>
I�d like to address a few points. The first is the meaning of the word
�promote.� At one
end of the spectrum "promote" might be understood as simply �raise for
discussion� or �ask
questions about�. At the other end might be the conduct here described by the
House of
Justice as �bringing pressure�:
�From certain quarters, for a number of decades, there have been repeated
attempts to
import into the Bah� Administration the concept that it is desirable and
proper to bring
about change in the community by forming a constituency of like-minded
believers to
bring pressure to bear on the elected Assemblies. Such a concept is very
similar to the
formation of parties and factions which is an accepted and familiar feature of
many
representative democracies. It is, however, wholly antithetical to the spirit
of Bah�
Administration, and would distort its nature and undermine that unity which the
Covenant is designed to preserve.� (House of Justice letter of December 2, 1995)
So that kind of �promotion� would be, I think it is fair to say from the tone
of this letter,
somewhere between strongly discouraged and condemned by the House of Justice.
That may be what you are referring to as the "method" that the House has said
not to follow. You are also asking about the *content* of discussions. On
that subject, though not expressly forbidden, I think it is a fair reading of
some of the
statements of the House, that it does not view the promotion of some ideas as a
healthy
phenomenon:
�It is not out of a desire to take issue with the views you have expressed, but
rather in an
attempt to respond frankly to your concerns, that the House of Justice has
asked us to
convey its comments on a number of points where its perceptions differ from
those you
have presented. These relate chiefly to the behaviour of a very small group of
Bah�s
who, rejecting all efforts of the administrative institutions to counsel and
appeal to them,
have aggressively sought to promote their misconceptions of the Teachings among
their
fellow believers. These efforts extend back many years, harnessing to their
purpose a
wide range of Bah� activities and associations, most recently Internet
lists.� (Letter on
behalf of the House of Justice dated December 10, 1992)
Jim wrote of the House of Justice, for example, �I don't see anything in the
standards
they're promoting, that I didn't see already in the writings of Baha'u'llah.�
And on this
very subject, the House wrote that indeed, its posture on the matter is a
direct statement
from the Writings of Baha�u�llah:
�Regarding membership on the Universal House of Justice being restricted to
men, you
are correct in your understanding that Bah�'ll�was explicit about the
matter, and
consequently it is not within the power of the House of Justice to rule
otherwise at this
time or at any time in the future.�
And,
� . . . the law regarding the membership of the Universal House of Justice is
embedded in
the Text and has been merely restated by the divinely appointed interpreters.
It is
therefore neither amenable to change nor subject to speculation about some
possible
future condition.�
(Both quotes from The Universal House of Justice, Letter of June 14, 1996)
Jim also wrote:
>>I see limits in the writings on the *manner* in which we can promote our
ideas, but I do not see any boundaries on the *kinds* of ideas we can promote.>>
I would first point out that the subjects you raised -- women on the House and
a later
Guardian -- are not merely garden variety Baha�i
teachings; they go to the heart of the Covenant: Who�s leading the Faith? In
particular,
the issue of a successor Guardian to Shoghi Effendi is one that has been
painstakingly
addressed a number of times by the House � formal letters, under its own
signature. So
you have asked about the promotion of ideas in areas that are of more than
passing
interest.
As to whether the promotion of ideas at variance with the statements of the
House is
forbidden, in addition to the quotes you mention in an earlier posting in this
thread, I
suggest this one for possible inclusion:
�It is natural that the friends would discuss such matters among themselves, as
you and
your correspondent have been doing on your Internet discussion group; how
otherwise
are they to deepen their understanding of the Teachings? But they should
recognize that
the resolution of differences of opinion on such fundamental questions is not
to be found
by continued discussion, but in referring to the Universal House of Justice
itself, as you
have done. Prolonged, unresolved, public discussion of these fundamental
questions can
do nothing but breed confusion and dissension.� (Letter on behalf of the House
of Justice
dated December 10, 1992)
I do not see the word �forbidden� in that sentence. It is not a prohibitive
approach,
but one based on reason, and on an appeal to accept the promises of the
Covenant giving
the House the power to resolve differences. I think this quote is responsive
to your
question. I think it is a fair statement that the House
views with disfavor �continued discussion� on such �fundamental questions� and
instead
directs referring the matter for resolution -- and I would say final resolution
--
�to the Universal House of Justice itself� to avoid �confusion
and dissension.� This function of the House in eliminating confusion and
dissension is
precisely one that the Writings call on the House of Justice to perform:
�In case of differences, 'Abdu'l-Bah�ust be consulted. They must revolve
around his
good pleasure. After 'Abdu'l-Bah�whenever the Universal House of Justice is
organized
it will ward off differences.� (`Abdu�l-Baha, Compilation on the Establishment
of the
Universal House of Justice, The Compilation of Compilations, Vol. I, p. 116)
I view this as a statement that when the House speaks on a subject on which
there are
differences, we are then to �revolve around its good pleasure.� Likewise:
�Beware, beware lest anyone create a rift or stir up sedition. Should there be
differences
of opinion, the Supreme House of Justice would immediately resolve the
problems.
Whatever will be its decision, by majority vote, shall be the real truth,
inasmuch as that
House is under the protection, unerring guidance, and care of the one true
Lord.�
(`Abdu�l-Baha, quoted in Messages from the Universal House of Justice
1963-1986, p.
53)
Another point I would make is that in addition to the point you originally
raised,
distinguishing between the *kinds* of ideas that are raised, and the *methods*
used to
promote them, I think perhaps there is also the *timing* of issues raised for
discussion.
That is, based on the quote above from the House about referring matters
central to the
Covenant to the House rather than prolonged discussion, and the statements from
the
Master that the House will �resolve� differences, that once the House has
addressed these
matters, I think it is urging us to consider them as closed, and advising us to
turn our
attention elsewhere:
�Those who from time to time express their dissatisfaction with the current
structure of
the Administrative Order would be better advised to turn their attention to a
thorough
study of the principles upon which it is based, as expounded by 'Abdu'l-Bah�and Shoghi
Effendi, and to concentrate their efforts on putting into practice the spirit
and letter of
these texts.�
It is presented as a word to the wise, not as a prohibition. It is speaking to
us in a mature
fashion, not a patronizing tone.
So, I think that the House has provided clear guidance on the question you
asked; though
it has not �forbidden� such discussion. �Forbid� is a big word in the lexicon
of the House
of Justice. It has not even forbidden the reading of Covenant-breaking
material:
"To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not
forbidden to the believers and does not constitute in
itself an act of Covenant-breaking.... However, the friends are warned in the
strongest terms against reading such literature ..."
(The Universal House of Justice, Developing Distinctive
Bah� Communities, p. 5.15)
Perhaps one could say that the House has also warned in the
strongest terms against certain kinds of promotion of
certain ideas.
I hope this airing of ideas is responsive to your question, and is helpful.
Brent
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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