Divine revelation

[robrecht]

The above is an example of the problem of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.

By the way, does the Universal House of Justice agree that it has no authority to interpret Baha'i scriptures?

Yes, absolutely. To quote one of their statements:

In the Bahá'í Faith there are two authoritative centers appointed to which the believers must turn, for in reality the Interpreter of the Word is an extension of that center which is the Word itself. The Book is the record of the utterance of Bahá'u'lláh, while the divinely inspired Interpreter is the living Mouth of that Book -- it is he and he alone who can authoritatively state what the Book means. Thus one center is the Book with its Interpreter, and the other is the Universal House of Justice guided by God to decide on whatever is not explicitly revealed in the Book.
(7 December 1969, published in "Messages from the Universal House of Justice: 1968-1973", pp. 42-43)

Is this saying something like the interpretation of the scriptures must be inspired in the same way that the scriptures themselves were inspired?

In this sentence below, does 'he and he alone' refer back to the immediately preceding 'the divinely inspired Interpreter' or further back to the Bahá'u'lláh?

The Book is the record of the utterance of Bahá'u'lláh, while the divinely inspired Interpreter is the living Mouth of that Book -- it is he and he alone who can authoritatively state what the Book means.

[Truthseeker]

Do we not need a "living mouth" to explain what the divinely inspired Interpreter, the "Living Mouth of that book," means? I wonder who that may be and how do we know that person is it. But that may not be enough. Do we not need yet another living mouth for the second living mouth? And so on to infinity.

Perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps the Divinely Inspired Interpreter is good enough, like the Holy Spirit is for the elect.

[Sen McGlinn]

Is this saying something like the interpretation of the scriptures must be inspired in the same way that the scriptures themselves were inspired?

In this sentence below, does 'he and he alone' refer back to the immediately preceding 'the divinely inspired Interpreter' or further back to the Bahá'u'lláh?

The Book is the record of the utterance of Bahá'u'lláh, while the divinely inspired Interpreter is the living Mouth of that Book -- it is he and he alone who can authoritatively state what the Book means.

I don't think it is a question of who is inspired, but rather of the separation of powers. Just as a separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers has evolved in government, the Bahai Faith has a constitutional system of internal governance, in which the authoritative interpretation of scripture is one sphere, the creation and amendment of policies and laws is another, and worship & liturgy is a third. "Matters of worship" are to be observed "according to the Book" - that is, each individual and every group who worship together decide for themselves what is intended, and what they wish. This avoids the development of fixed ritual forms, and the risk of schisms when people have different ideas. It guarantees pluralism in worship and protects the individual conscience, in this most personal sphere, from interference by community authorities.

"he and he alone" in the quote from the Universal House of Justice refers to the divinely inspired Interpreter. Everyone can have their ideas, but only he can say authoritatively what the Bahai scriptures (the Book) means. This marks out a doctrinal sphere that the House of Justice cannot enter, which again guarantees pluralism within the limits of the authoritative interpretations, protects the individual and reduces the risk of schisms. I think there are three implicit "and NOT" here: the inspired Interpreter can give authoritative interpretations AND NOT the House of Justice; and NOT any clergy; and NOT any individual who might obtain a prominent position.

The House of Justice heads the third constitutional sphere, which is rather confusingly called the "legislative" in Bahai terminology, but actually covers the executive, legislative and judicial roles: it makes laws and policies, implements them and makes rulings in the event of any dispute between the various organs and individuals. This sphere is governed by consultation, as there are local and national Houses of Justice as well as the Universal House of Justice. Each consists of at least nine elected members, who make decisions in consultation, and who are expected to receive and consider input from the community in various forms. Communal decision-making is therefore very important -- but the majority cannot tell you what Bahai doctrine is, or how to worship. So the three-way division of powers is also a way of maximising communal decision-making while guaranteeing the freedom of the individual conscience in matters of conscience.

[robrecht]

I don't think it is a question of who is inspired, but rather of the separation of powers. Just as a separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers has evolved in government, the Bahai Faith has a constitutional system of internal governance, in which the authoritative interpretation of scripture is one sphere, the creation and amendment of policies and laws is another, and worship & liturgy is a third. "Matters of worship" are to be observed "according to the Book" - that is, each individual and every group who worship together decide for themselves what is intended, and what they wish. This avoids the development of fixed ritual forms, and the risk of schisms when people have different ideas. It guarantees pluralism in worship and protects the individual conscience, in this most personal sphere, from interference by community authorities.

"he and he alone" in the quote from the Universal House of Justice refers to the divinely inspired Interpreter. Everyone can have their ideas, but only he can say authoritatively what the Bahai scriptures (the Book) means. This marks out a doctrinal sphere that the House of Justice cannot enter, which again guarantees pluralism within the limits of the authoritative interpretations, protects the individual and reduces the risk of schisms. I think there are three implicit "and NOT" here: the inspired Interpreter can give authoritative interpretations AND NOT the House of Justice; and NOT any clergy; and NOT any individual who might obtain a prominent position.

The House of Justice heads the third constitutional sphere, which is rather confusingly called the "legislative" in Bahai terminology, but actually covers the executive, legislative and judicial roles: it makes laws and policies, implements them and makes rulings in the event of any dispute between the various organs and individuals. This sphere is governed by consultation, as there are local and national Houses of Justice as well as the Universal House of Justice. Each consists of at least nine elected members, who make decisions in consultation, and who are expected to receive and consider input from the community in various forms. Communal decision-making is therefore very important -- but the majority cannot tell you what Bahai doctrine is, or how to worship. So the three-way division of powers is also a way of maximising communal decision-making while guaranteeing the freedom of the individual conscience in matters of conscience.

Thanks, Sen. Does this mean that there is currently no officially sanctioned interpreter? Is it the case that no one knows for sure, at least not officially, who a/the divinely inspired Interpreter is today? When you say "within the limits of the authoritative interpretations", are you speaking of interpretations that have been given in the past by 'Abdu'l-Bahá or Shoghi Effendi?

[Sen McGlinn]

Thanks, Sen. Does this mean that there is currently no officially sanctioned interpreter? Is it the case that no one knows for sure, at least not officially, who a/the divinely inspired Interpreter is today? When you say "within the limits of the authoritative interpretations", are you speaking of interpretations that have been given in the past by 'Abdu'l-Bahá or Shoghi Effendi?

That's correct, there is noone alive today who is the authoritative interpeter, and none can be appointed. So the office is vacant, but still has this very important effect: if anyone claimed that their own ideas had some authority, they would be seen to be stepping into the shoes of the Guardian, which would be lesse majesteit, quite shocking. The House of Justice is likewise prevented from defining doctrines and interpreting scripture, as that was the sphere of the Guardian. So although we are not getting a continuing flow of new authoritative interpretations, the concept of the office is still effective in some respects.

[robrecht]

It is my understanding that he did.

This may help you to understand better:

http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/abou...dissenrolment/

[robrecht]

That's correct, there is noone alive today who is the authoritative interpeter, and none can be appointed. So the office is vacant, but still has this very important effect: if anyone claimed that their own ideas had some authority, they would be seen to be stepping into the shoes of the Guardian, which would be lesse majesteit, quite shocking. The House of Justice is likewise prevented from defining doctrines and interpreting scripture, as that was the sphere of the Guardian. So although we are not getting a continuing flow of new authoritative interpretations, the concept of the office is still effective in some respects.

Thank you, Sen. Other than text criticism and translation issues you spoke of in the other thread, is there in the Baha'i faith/philosophy/community any room for questioning the interpretations of 'Abdu'l-Bahá or Shoghi Effendi?

[Sen McGlinn]

Thank you, Sen. Other than text criticism and translation issues you spoke of in the other thread, is there in the Baha'i faith/philosophy/community any room for questioning the interpretations of 'Abdu'l-Bahá or Shoghi Effendi?

Since the appointments of Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi as authoritative interpreters are in writing and indubitable, their interpretations stand. To be a Bahai but reject their interpretations would be self-contradictory, and of course most of us are a little self-contradictory at times. There is however a good deal of wriggle room every which way, since Baha'u'llah's approach to "truth" was subtle and even postmodern. Scriptures, according to Baha'u'llah, have multiple meanings, partly because they have meanings at different levels, and partly because the perceiver filters truths that are appropriate to the perceiver. So while one can hardly dispute that an interpretation of Baha'u'llah's words by Abdu'l-Baha is correct, that does not mean that it is the only correct meaning.

For Bahais, the correctness of Abdu'l-Baha's and Shoghi Effendi's interpretations is a point of doctrine, but a historian would also have to take it as very likely. Abdu'l-Baha lived with Baha'u'llah for most of his life, and like his father was a very intelligent man with a brilliant memory. At no point in his life did he develop a separate "line" from his father's teachings, or a separate following or other ambitions. So when he says, Baha'u'llah meant X, it's very likely that Baha'u'llah did mean X (among other meanings). Shoghi Effendi was in a similar privileged position, very likely to know what was in Abdu'l-Baha's mind.

[robrecht]

Since the appointments of Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi as authoritative interpreters are in writing and indubitable, their interpretations stand. To be a Bahai but reject their interpretations would be self-contradictory, and of course most of us are a little self-contradictory at times. There is however a good deal of wriggle room every which way, since Baha'u'llah's approach to "truth" was subtle and even postmodern. Scriptures, according to Baha'u'llah, have multiple meanings, partly because they have meanings at different levels, and partly because the perceiver filters truths that are appropriate to the perceiver. So while one can hardly dispute that an interpretation of Baha'u'llah's words by Abdu'l-Baha is correct, that does not mean that it is the only correct meaning.

For Bahais, the correctness of Abdu'l-Baha's and Shoghi Effendi's interpretations is a point of doctrine, but a historian would also have to take it as very likely. Abdu'l-Baha lived with Baha'u'llah for most of his life, and like his father was a very intelligent man with a brilliant memory. At no point in his life did he develop a separate "line" from his father's teachings, or a separate following or other ambitions. So when he says, Baha'u'llah meant X, it's very likely that Baha'u'llah did mean X (among other meanings). Shoghi Effendi was in a similar privileged position, very likely to know what was in Abdu'l-Baha's mind.

Thanks, Sen. Aside from a good deal of wriggle room, subtlety, higher order truths, and personal filtering, can a Baha'i sometimes simply say that he simply thinks Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi was simply ignorant or mistaken about some matter of the faith? Some Christian theologians might say that Jesus was limited in his understanding of many things by his human intellect or the culture in which he lived just as all human beings are. Certainly, many Christians would be absolutely opposed to such an idea, but others have no trouble with this at all. Even the gospel writers, if not Jesus himself, proclaimed his ignorance about the timing of the end of the world. How do Baha'i approach this with Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi?

[Sen McGlinn]

... can a Baha'i sometimes simply say that he simply thinks Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi was simply ignorant or mistaken about some matter of the faith? Some Christian theologians might say that Jesus was limited in his understanding of many things by his human intellect or the culture in which he lived .... How do Baha'i approach this with Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi?

It's pretty tough to find a matter "of the faith" where Baha'u'llah made an error. He did make errors as regards the chronology of classical Greek philosophers, because he followed the history-writing traditional in Islamic scholarship up to modern times, which had become confused at an early stage. But (1) is this a matter of faith? Don't the prophets and sages refer to the world and its history in order to say something about spiritual matters? This is the approach of the great Bahai scholar Mirza Fadl al-Gulpaygani, who says the Manifestations don't come to teach us history. And (2), some read Baha'u'llah's framing of this section as a warning to the reader that he will be citing received accounts, as if he knew the chronology was dubious but used it in the form that his readers would expect. Whatever greater knowledge of worldly things a prophet may have, he his bound to speak in the language of his hearers, more or less adopting their cosmos.

You can see an example of the discussion within the community on such issues in
http://bahai-library.com/cole_proble...onology_hikmat
and then google discussion of it. Note that the original paper was published in World Order, which at the time was the most prestigious Bahai journal.

Abdu'l-Baha made some errors in his account of the martyrdom of some Bahais in Yazd, and when the issue was raised in the time of Shoghi Effendi, he told the Bahais they should get the best documentation and use that account, because Abdu'l-Baha had said that he was citing sources he had received.

Shoghi Effendi included one section in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah which apparently (I am not certain) was written by Abdu'l-Baha. In terms of doctrine it makes no difference which of them wrote it, but it illustrates that when he says that he is dependant on the information he receives, that includes information about the Bahai writings themselves. The Universal House of Justice also says that it is not omniscient: it depends on the information given to it and can change its decisions when more information is received.

This is not to say that there is no room for the idea of propositional inerrancy in Bahai doctrine, but it is on shaky ground. I personally do not argue for the propositional inerrancy of Bahai scripture, but there may be some who do.

[robrecht]

It's pretty tough to find a matter "of the faith" where Baha'u'llah made an error. He did make errors as regards the chronology of classical Greek philosophers, because he followed the history-writing traditional in Islamic scholarship up to modern times, which had become confused at an early stage. But (1) is this a matter of faith? Don't the prophets and sages refer to the world and its history in order to say something about spiritual matters? This is the approach of the great Bahai scholar Mirza Fadl al-Gulpaygani, who says the Manifestations don't come to teach us history. And (2), some read Baha'u'llah's framing of this section as a warning to the reader that he will be citing received accounts, as if he knew the chronology was dubious but used it in the form that his readers would expect. Whatever greater knowledge of worldly things a prophet may have, he his bound to speak in the language of his hearers, more or less adopting their cosmos.

You can see an example of the discussion within the community on such issues in
http://bahai-library.com/cole_proble...onology_hikmat
and then google discussion of it. Note that the original paper was published in World Order, which at the time was the most prestigious Bahai journal.

Abdu'l-Baha made some errors in his account of the martyrdom of some Bahais in Yazd, and when the issue was raised in the time of Shoghi Effendi, he told the Bahais they should get the best documentation and use that account, because Abdu'l-Baha had said that he was citing sources he had received.

Shoghi Effendi included one section in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah which apparently (I am not certain) was written by Abdu'l-Baha. In terms of doctrine it makes no difference which of them wrote it, but it illustrates that when he says that he is dependant on the information he receives, that includes information about the Bahai writings themselves. The Universal House of Justice also says that it is not omniscient: it depends on the information given to it and can change its decisions when more information is received.

This is not to say that there is no room for the idea of propositional inerrancy in Bahai doctrine, but it is on shaky ground. I personally do not argue for the propositional inerrancy of Bahai scripture, but there may be some who do.

Thanks, Sen. Yes, some do, for example:

In what sense do Baha'i consider their holy scriptures to be infallible?

The spiritual law and teachings in the scriptures are infallible and inerrant.

[Sen McGlinn]

To say that the spiritual law and teachings are infallible and inerrant is an empty statement -- for if it is a spiritual law, how would one know that it is in error? One can only say that one has faith in it and seeks to apply it in life. Or that one believes the teachings, if applied, lead to a better life, a better world, a better picture of God's will, etc.

Propositional infallibility is something different, and a very hard case to maintain. It can be proved wrong by any error in a statement purporting to be a statement of fact. I think there are not many churches with that level of confidence in the inerrancy of scripture today, and the same would go for Bahais. Apart from being a hard claim to maintain, it seems to miss the point about the purpose of revelation.

[robrecht]

To say that the spiritual law and teachings are infallible and inerrant is an empty statement -- for if it is a spiritual law, how would one know that it is in error? One can only say that one has faith in it and seeks to apply it in life. Or that one believes the teachings, if applied, lead to a better life, a better world, a better picture of God's will, etc.

Propositional infallibility is something different, and a very hard case to maintain. It can be proved wrong by any error in a statement purporting to be a statement of fact. I think there are not many churches with that level of confidence in the inerrancy of scripture today, and the same would go for Bahais. Apart from being a hard claim to maintain, it seems to miss the point about the purpose of revelation.

Interesting. How does one identify what are the spiritual laws and teachings in the Baha'i holy scriptures as distinguished from other propositions contained therein?

[Truthseeker]

Is there a spiritual law that is not in the Bible? Does the Bible have a specific law that Christians have to obey that is not in Baha'i? (My guess is that there is no such law in the Bible, but I'm not sure).

[Sen McGlinn]

The reference to spiritual laws and teachings being infallible and inerrant came from shunheydragon, and I cannot speak for what he meant. I however said of spiritual laws and teachings that one "can only say that one has faith in it and seeks to apply it in life. Or that one believes the teachings, if applied, lead to a better life, a better world, a better picture of God's will, etc. "

The teachings I was thinking of are (1) general moral laws, such as not lying, stealing, killing and the like;
(2) teachings about religious practice, such as the times and types of prayer, fasting, pilgrimage,
(3) religious teachings about society, such as (in Bahai) the advocacy of consultative decision making in politics and within the Bahai community; advocacy of world peace through mutual security, international law and an international tribunal; equality of all and abolition of prejudices and discrimination; separation of church and state (religious leaders should not interfere in politics; state should not interfere with individual conscience and religious practice).

For all of these, it is I think meaningless to say "this is infallible." One might say, "I think this is an infallible remedy." The proof of such things is in the pudding.