World Order/Series2/Volume 23/Issue 3 4/Text

←Issue 1 & 2

World Order, Series 2 Volume 23 - Issue 3 & 4

Return to PDF view Proofread once

[Page -1]

Spring/Summer 1989

World order

Seeing Us as All Humanity
Editorial

The Process of Social Change
Brian Aull

The Mystery of the Manifestation
David M. Earl

[Page 0]

World Order

VOLUME 23, NUMBERS 3 & 4 • PUBLISHED QUARTERLY

WORLD ORDER IS INTENDED TO STIMULATE, INSPIRE, AND SERVE THINKING PEOPLE IN
THEIR SEARCH TO FIND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND CONTEMPORARY
RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS AND PHILOSOPHY

Editorial Board:

FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH

BETTY J. FISHER

HOWARD GAREY

ROBERT H. STOCKMAN

JAMES D. STOKES

Consultant in Poetry:

HERBERT WOODWARD MARTIN

Subscriber Service:

RONALD W. BROWNE

WORLD ORDER is published quarterly by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, IL 60091. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to WORLD ORDER, 536 Sheridan Road, Wilmette, IL 60091. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, or of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts can be typewritten or computer generated. They should be double spaced throughout, with the footnotes at the end. The contributor should send three copies —an original and two legible copies—and should keep a copy. Return postage should be included. Send manuscripts and other editorial correspondence to WORLD ORDER, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, IL 60091.

Subscription rates: U.S.A., Canada, Mexico, 1 year, $10.00; 2 years, $18.00; single copies, $3.00. All other countries, 1 year, $15.00; 2 years, $28.00; single copies, $3.00. Airmail, 1 year, $20.00; 2 years, $38.00.

WORLD ORDER is protected through trademark registration in the U.S. Patent Office.

Copyright © 1991, National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
ISSN 0043-8804

IN THIS ISSUE

2   Seeing Us as All Humanity

Editorial

4   Interchange: Letters from and to the Editor

9   The Process of Social Change

by Brian Aull

18   Certitude

poem by J. R. Harrington

21   The Mystery of the Manifestation

by David M. Earl

31   Crimson Quest

poem by Donna Samuelson Cluett

32   Canterbury Cathedral

poem by Anneke Buys

32   Flashes

poem by Anneke Buys

Inside back cover: Authors & Artists in This Issue

[Page 1]

[Page 2]

Seeing Us as All Humanity

ONE’S NOTION of the boundaries of “we” determines the limits of one’s interest in all manner of problems, calamities, tragedies. What is not perceived as a problem directly or imminently affecting “us” really doesn’t matter, though upon reading the newspaper we may cluck our tongue and say, “It’s really too bad, isn’t it?”

When the lawlessness and violence of the inner city begins to invade “our” part of town, only then is one impelled to “do something about it” or to take political action to see to it that something be done. As long as AIDS is perceived as a disease of gays and intravenous drug abusers, it is deplorable, but not enough to inspire action: it must be seen to invade “our” community of heterosexual non-addicts before the tenor finally strikes home,

The attitude is all too familiar on the local level: it has been called NIMBY—Not In My Back Yard—and is manifested in resistance to the placement of affordable housing, halfway houses, institutions or homes for mildly retarded adults, all of which, though recognized as necessary, should be located “somewhere else.”

As we read the news about the world, the reactions of the majority of Americans to geographically distant misfortunes are colored by the greater or lesser resemblance of their victims to people of “our own” race, religion, or ethnic identity. An earthquake in Italy or Armenia will arouse more concern and lead to more generous responses than famine and war in Africa or Asia; the clips in TV news make the viewers vividly aware of the physical traits of the unfortunate people, especially children, caught up in these events.

The great problems affecting our world cannot be solved other than by universal participation in their solution. And yet it is natural, in conformity with “human nature,” to be truly concerned solely with the problems affecting that fraction of humanity of which we consider ourselves a part. This paradox can only be resolved by the spiritual discipline involved in seeing “us” as including all humanity. This is no mere intellectual game; the involvement of our deepest feelings is required as we make the effort to stretch the borders of “us” until we see all human beings as our brothers and sisters, all children as our own.

“It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his country,” Bahá’u’lláh has written, “but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.”

[Page 3]

[Page 4]

Interchange LETTERS FROM AND TO THE EDITOR

THE THEME that animates this issue of World Order is a concern with process. The word itself, suggestive of a logical, systematic, and practical approach, embodies a value dear to the hearts of Bahá’ís—the fundamentally optimistic belief that when problems and questions, however obtuse and apparently intractable, are properly addressed, solutions and answers can be found.

This impulse to assert the harmonious relationship between the abstract and the concrete, the material and the metaphysical, the vision and the deed, lies deep at the core of Bahá’í experience. Bahá’u’lláh’s (the Prophet-Founder of the Bahá’í Faith) principle of progressive revelation—His explanation of the unfolding, interrelated nature of religions—is itself a description of the working out of a cosmic process in which truth is gradually, incrementally revealed by God. No less a figure than ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was often praised for his ability to walk “the Mystic Way” with “practical feet”; and he, in turn, advised Bahá’ís when grappling with seemingly insurmountable problems to “make a start and all will come right.”

The difficulty with most of the really serious concerns in life is that the contrast between the clarity of the problem and the obscurity of the path to a solution is often very great. The authors of the articles in this issue deal with two of those profoundly important problems and suggest processes by which they might profitably be addressed.

In “The Process of Social Change,” Brian Aull discusses the “how” of progress. What means, he asks, can best be used to move us from our present flawed world to one exhibiting more of the ideal features that we all long to see achieved? In answer he offers the example of the Bahá’í teachings, which “emphasize the mutually reinforcing nature of social change and spiritual development” as a practical paradigm based on a perception that true development is a form of education. The model for change that he describes stresses “a synergistic relationship between spiritual development and social progress” that sees the development of both as parallel maturation processes involving ethical reorientation. Individuals must rediscover the basic nobility of human nature by reestablishing a bond of love with their Creator; social entities must learn how to pursue the truth collectively, using the nonadversarial techniques of consultation. The result, he argues, can bring a sun-like quality to human affairs, radiating the force of example to a struggling world.

David M. Earl brings the process to bear on a question of a different but related order. While Aull looks outward at social change, Earl, in “The Mystery of the Manifestation,” focuses on perhaps the most fundamental inward-looking conundrum of this or any age: how does one know a God Who is unknowable but Whom we are enjoined to seek and to know? In the Bahá’í view, as Earl explains, the Holy Prophets or “Manifestations” (such as Christ, Muḥammad, or Bahá’u’lláh) are the link between God and humanity. Earl’s [Page 5] article is a systematic outline of the intellectual process that one might employ in undertaking this most serious of all quests, “the spiritual journey of understanding the mystery of the Manifestation.” Using a careful logical process, Earl explains Bahá’í teachings on the transcendent nature of God, the dual nature of the Manifestations, the necessity of their appearance, and their essential unity. One of the article’s most pleasurable features is its use of apt passages from the various Holy Books to illustrate the interrelationship of relevant concepts in Christianity, Judaism, the Bábí religion, and the Bahá’í Faith.

To the Editor

HEGEL AND MARX—ONE SIDE

I would like to submit a belated comment on Nader Saiedi’s use of Hegel in “Faith, Reason, and Society” (Spring/Summer 1987). Saiedi’s article offered a fresh perspective on Bahá’í epistemology, one that combined the insights of a sociological perspective with the philosophical question of the temporality of divine reason as it is expressed throughout the changing conditions of history.

I have a small critique to make, however, about Saiedi’s references to G. W. F. Hegel and Karl Marx. Saiedi uses Hegel and Marx to support partially his argument for the historicity and relativity of reason/Divine Mind/revelation/Word of God/Universal Intellect.

Juan Cole’s letter (World Order, Fall 1987 / Winter 1987-88) draws the distinction between the eternity of the “Universal Intellect” and the temporality of its emanations. Cole would prefer the argument for the historicity of reason to be based on the temporality of the divine emanations, but he does not make any critique of Saiedi’s use of Hegel and Marx.

There are two references to Hegel in Saiedi: In the first reference (15) Saiedi gives limited support to the Marxist and Hegelian view of absolute reason in history. In the second reference (16-17) Saiedi rejects Hegel’s preference for philosophy over religion based on the Bahá’í understanding of the multifaceted expressions of divine revelation.

My criticism of Saiedi’s use of Hegel is based on two considerations:

(i) Saeidi has totally omitted Shoghi Effendi’s strong critique of Hegelian philosophy (The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh 182-83). Shoghi Effendi holds Hegel’s philosophy accountable for “militant nationalism,” the deification of the state, “racial animosity,” and “a weakening of the church.” Shoghi Effendi’s comments are pertinent to the points that Saiedi raises. I realize that the focus of Saeidi’s article was not directly on Marx and Hegel, but it does not seem justifiable in an article of this nature to omit totally Shoghi Effendi’s reference to Hegel. Even a small reference with a brief comment would have been better than a total omission.

While it is laudable to play fair and recognize what merits there are in the philosophy of Marx and Hegel, I feel that the method should also take into account, however briefly, those statements that do exist in the Bahá’í writings on these philosophers.

(ii) I do not think that the religious implications of Hegel’s concept of the “historicity of reason” are compatible with Bahá’í belief.

Although Saedi, in an admirable spirit of liberality, wants to give credit where credit is due to these two philosophers who have received very negative mention in the writings of Shoghi Effendi, I do not think it can be done on the basis of Hegel’s concept of the historical reason which Saiedi believes to be a new idea, especially in Hegel. (Marx borrowed his dialectic from Hegel.)

In his typically synthetic manner, Hegel tied together his notions of God (the Absolute), the state, and history to form a nexus. In the place of a transcendent God, Hegel raised a new idol, the state. The Prussian state in particular, he felt, was the last great stage in three phases of history: [Page 6] the Asiatic with its absolute monarchy, the Graeco-Roman with its emphasis on individual freedom, and the Germanic which would be the synthesis of the former two, the modern strong state.

Hegel became the darling of certain historians because he took history seriously and especially historical process, which he formulated as his famous dialectics of history. Within this scheme of things, Hegel focused on the once-prominence-to-every-nation theme. For Hegel the Germanic state was about to step onto the center stage of history. But for Hegel the means was, clearly and unapologetically, warfare. Hegel, unlike Kant, was convinced of the intractability of the sovereignty of nations and their mutual hostility and, therefore, the inevitability of war.

According to Hegel’s “logic,” the only way to carry forward the dialectics of history was for one nation to vanquish all others and to drive history on to its predetermined teleos, It was a kind of perverted mirror image of Bahá’u’lláh’s notion of the “ever-advancing civilization.”

Further, for Hegel, it was not the personal, benevolent, loving God Who was working out the dialects of the Universal Reason of His Divine Mind in a “responsible utopianism,” to use Saeidi’s phrase, viz. the Kingdom of God on earth, Universal Reason put to beneficent purposes. It was now the arbitrary, impersonal Spirit he called the Absolute, the God of the collectivity. It was a God acting through the violence of logic, a God in motion, yes, but the God of German nationalism, the Power-God of the Germanic tribes. The Absolute was moving, but within a closed system, a system that was about to culminate in the victory of German nationalism.

To finish these brief remarks about Hegel, I would like to comment on the credibility of Shoghi Effendi in his strong condemnation of Hegel. Although Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith made no claim for himself of infallibility on matters not directly related to the Bahá’í Faith and its teachings, such as secular history, science, economics, philosophy, etc., his condemnation of Hegel is permeated throughout with such apocalyptic certitude, and the guidance that he gives so strong, that we would be unwise to ignore it. It was not only a mark of Shoghi Effendi’s audaciousness in demystifying Hegel at a time when he was practically venerated in Anglo-Germanic Europe, but it is also an indication of his vision and insight to have spoken out against Hegel at a time (1936) when Hegel’s stature was well-nigh awesome in the schools of philosophy.

Since then Karl Popper and others have done a serious critique of Hegel’s philosophy and have validated Shoghi Effendi’s judgment. This does not mean, however, that for Bahá’ís Hegel has been relegated to the indexed reading list. Bahá’ís are free to investigate Hegel, and, while taking into account his status in Shoghi Effendi, free to share whatever merits they may find in his philosophy. I feel, however, that they lie more in his exploration of the concept of monism than in his dialectics of history.

Finally, I wonder whether it is justifiable to credit Hegel with originality before anyone has done a serious exploration of the thinking behind Shoghi Effendi’s statement, even at the risk of appearing narrow-minded.

J. A. MCLEAN

Gatineau, Quebec

HEGEL AND MARX—ANOTHER SIDE

Mr. McLean has criticized my article [“Faith, Reason, and Society,” World Order, Spring/Summer 1987] for my treatment of Hegel and Marx. He criticizes the article for a) my ambivalent position on Hegel and Marx (instead, he argues that virtually nothing positive can be attributed to these two German scholars) and b) my failure to write more on both Hegelian and Marxist theories, exposing their shortcomings.

First, my article was not directly on Hegel or Marx. It was a long article, and there was not enough space to write any more on any specific Eastern or Western theorist I have referred to in the article. However, I have already discussed both Hegel and Marx in my article “A Dialogue with Marxism” published in The Circle of Unity.

Second, as I have discussed it in “A Dialogue,” it is a mistake to talk about dialectics and Marxism as a unitary and unequivocal set of concepts. There are different interpretations of these systems of thought, some of which are clearly opposed to the Faith and some which are not. The Guardian’s pronouncements are directed against specific—and widely held—interpretations of these theories.

Third, I want to reaffirm my belief in the basic point I made in the article. Certainly, both Hegel and Marx have made many theoretical mistakes and their theories have been put to many abusive interpretations. That is why I have criticized both theorists in my article.

However, Bahá’u’lláh has called for justice and fairness in our judgments on ourselves and other people. It is the case that probably the heart of Bahá’í philosophy, sociology, and theology is its historical orientation. That is why we have to notice the positive aspect of both Hegelian and [Page 7] Marxist theories. More specifically, it is the idea of history and historicity of reason which is the center and spirit of Hegelian tradition. Everything else is secondary deductions in his dialectical thought. Mr. McLean ignores this significant contribution of Hegel. It is my perception, however, that the people of Bahá should be able to see contradiction and ambiguity in various expressions of life including the works of great scholars. Suppression of such tensions and contradictions is a mark of dogmatic fundamentalism, which is opposed to the spirit of the Faith.

Mr. McLean cites Popper, a competent and expert theoretician on Hegel, Marx, and totalitarianism. However, the same Popper, in the same book, defines Socrates and Plato as the two original architects of totalitarianism and oppression. But Bahá’u’lláh’s judgment on Socrates and Plato is much different and highly positive. After all, Popper is not entirely mistaken about Socrates or Plato. Their ideas were accompanied by a repressive political theory. However, this does not mean that they contributed nothing positive. In the midst of their mistakes, they raised the notion of a universal truth and reason. The same is true of Hegel and Marx. Their political theory is filled with many mistakes, like that of any other great mind, but they raised a new idea. That was the notion of historical reason. This alone makes their theories of world-historical significance, an idea which is taken to the point of perfection in Bahá’í philosophy. There are many other similarities between Bahá’í thought and Hegelian or Marxist theory. But that analysis requires a careful investigation and not an a priori pronouncement of abstract and sweeping generalizations.

Fourth, Mr. McLean’s claims concerning the outdatedness and refutation of Hegel and Marx is simply inaccurate. Unless one equates Marxism with the theory of dictatorship of the proletariat, one cannot suggest the death of dialectics or Marxism. In fact, the basic ideas of dialectics— totality, history, unity of order and freedom, rejection of positivism and the contradictory character of human beings—and Marxism—significance of social classes, relation of knowledge to social position, history, totality, and critique of alienation—have become part of the theoretical grammar of most of the social science approaches regardless of their political persuasion. One should look at the disciplines of sociology and history for clear examples.

Let me add at the end that I find many of Mr. McLean’s objections against Hegel and Marx helpful and useful. It is his overgeneralization with which I disagree.

NADER SAIEDI

Northfield, Minnesota

[Page 8]

[Page 9]

The Process of Social Change

BY BRIAN AULL

Copyright © 1991 by Brian Aull. I am grateful to Dr. Walter Jaros for many insightful discussions and to Cathy Hoffman, Executive Director of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Peace Commission. Working with Cathy on Commission projects helped shape the ideas in this article.

WHEN asked to describe an ideal world, most people would list similar characteristics. They would imagine a world without war, poverty, political repression, and racial animosity. Many might imagine a world whose political and economic machinery is unified. When asked whether and how such a world might be possible, however, these same people would probably not display such a consensus. People are deeply divided over the question of social change: not so much over what changes would ultimately be ideal but over what changes are realistic and over the processes that might produce changes.

Social change is a central theme of the Bahá’í Faith. For example, its teachings call for the unification of the world’s political machinery and economic systems. Until recently such goals were widely regarded as radical and impractical. However, the changes of the twentieth century have produced a universal awareness of the interdependence of the nations of the world. The result is that the idea of a global civilization now finds much more widespread acceptance.

The more profound and less well-understood aspects of the Bahá’í teachings, however, pertain to the process of change. The Bahá’í teachings present definitive concepts of human nature and human history and emphasize the mutually reinforcing nature of social change and spiritual development. The Bahá’í teachings also stress the indispensability of religion in promoting this dual process. Bahá’ís believe that their Faith embodies the most recent direct revelation of the will of God to humanity and that the pattern of social and democratic process to which the Bahá’í community aspires reflects a divinely inspired model of social change that is suited to the needs of the modern world.

Human Nature and Human History

AMONG organizations that work for social change two opposing views of change are often encountered. The “macrocentric” model holds that not much can be done to improve human nature but that human beings respond to the forces of political and social organization and economics. In this view change is based on macropolitical and macroeconomic reform and restructuring. The “microcentric” model, on the contrary, holds that the transformation of the individual, achieved at the spiritual, psychological, and interpersonal levels, will automatically result in the creation of a just and harmonious social order. In this view achieving a spiritual orientation is not only necessary but sufficient. In the United States the philosophical differences between these two models have separated political activists from those involved in the “human potential” movement.

The Bahá’í writings support and seek to reconcile aspects of both views. On the one hand, Bahá’u’lláh, the Prophet-Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, addressed letters to the rulers of [Page 10] the most powerful countries of the nineteenth century, urging them not only to reduce armaments and to defend the poor and downtrodden within their own dominions but also to agree jointly on a multilateral common security framework in which peace would be enforced by the entire community of nations rather than by particular powers. Bahá’u’lláh also made one of two major responsibilities of individuals in general the carrying forward of an “ever-advancing civilization.” Such statements are Bahá’u’lláh’s affirmation of the importance of comprehensive political restructuring. Moreover, such restructuring would have a direct impact on the development of the individual. Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, states, for example, that, although the emergence of a world civilization and culture represents the full maturation of human society, the individual, “as a result of such a consummation, will continue indefinitely to progress and develop.”

On the other hand, the Bahá’í writings repeatedly emphasize the development of spiritual and moral attributes in the individual (who is enjoined to know and to love God) as a prerequisite to social change. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the son of Bahá’u’lláh and authorized interpreter of His teachings, states that “the morals of humanity must undergo change” and that the uplifting of the human race in the aggregate depends on love and spiritual bonds uniting the hearts of people.

Thus the Bahá’í writings indicate a mutually reinforcing relationship between the spiritual development of the individual and the social processes of the family, community, nation, and planet. A deeper understanding of this relationship is gained by examining the concepts of human nature and human history in the Bahá’í writings.

Divergent assumptions about human nature have divided thinkers throughout the centuries. There has been a pervasive conflict between the view that human beings are basically good and the view that, stripped of the restraints imposed by society, humans are basically evil. The Bahá’í Faith affirms elements of both views. Human beings are both spiritual and physical beings. Their spiritual endowment, however, is a set of latent divine attributes that must be actively developed through a lifelong effort to rise above a preoccupation with material existence and to develop spiritual qualities and a moral character. The core of the process is the development of a bond of love between the individual and his or her Creator. Speaking of the human soul, Bahá’u’lláh writes:

Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.

The purpose of education, defined in the broadest terms, is to foster the process of spiritual development. Again, Bahá’u’lláh writes:

Man is the supreme Talisman. Lack of a proper education hath, however, deprived him of that which he doth inherently possess. [Page 11] Through a word proceeding out of the mouth of God he was called into being; by one word more he was guided to recognize the Source of his education; by yet another word his station and destiny were safeguarded. The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom.

Though human beings are noble, it is not a nobility that manifests itself spontaneously. If the process of spiritual education is neglected, and individuals become hedonistic, they become, according to the Bahá’í writings, more savage than any beast in the animal kingdom. Therefore, human beings, as individuals, have the capacity to be agents of either constructive or destructive social change.

Parallel to the Bahá’í Faith’s developmental view of the individual is its developmental view of human society. The human race as a collective social unit also develops in response to an educative process. It undergoes stages of maturity analogous to the stages of infancy, childhood, and adolescence in the life of an individual. Shoghi Effendi states that human social evolution “has had its earliest beginnings in the birth of family life, its subsequent development in the achievement of tribal solidarity, leading in turn to the constitution of the city-state, and expanding later into the institution of independent and sovereign nations.” A global civilization is now beginning to emerge—a civilization that represents the coming of age of human society, analogous to adulthood in the development of the individual. Like the previous social transitions in history, however, this transition is not smooth or easy. In fact, it involves “a severe ordeal, unparalleled in its intensity.” The social upheaval of our century is understood by Bahá’ís as the growing pains of an emerging global civilization.

Religion, the Bahá’í Faith,
and Social Change

RELIGION is upheld in the Bahá’í writings as an indispensable force for social progress, and the eclipse or corruption of religion is held to be socially as well as spiritually destructive.

A fundamental Bahá’í teaching that bears on the role of religion in social change is progressive revelation. Historic religions are all divine in origin, and each has played a unique historical role in a progressive civilizing process. The Founders of the religions of humankind, in their capacities as God’s spokespersons, have been the primary Educators of both the individual and of society. These spiritual luminaries, to Whom Bahá’ís refer as Manifestations of God, have each stirred a spiritual reawakening, an enkindlement of the love of God, among the people to whom they gave their messages. Each also stimulated the social and cultural development of humankind as a collective organism.

Moses, for example, stressed the concept of law. The Ten Commandments that He revealed are still widely regarded as principles of civilized life and a safeguard against anarchy. Jesus Christ stressed love and spiritual devotion in His message to the heirs of Moses’ revelation, many of whom had become mired in cold-hearted legalism. He rejected one of the weightiest laws of the Torah by picking corn on the Sabbath. In one sense He annulled the revelation brought by Moses, but in another sense He fulfilled it by continuing the divinely ordained educative process of humanity to the next stage.

The primary historical mission of Bahá’u’lláh is to bring about world unity by teaching the knowledge of the oneness of the human family. Shoghi Effendi elaborates:

The principle of the Oneness of Mankind—the pivot round which all the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh revolve—is no mere outburst of ignorant emotionalism or an expression of vague and pious hope. Its appeal is not to be merely identified with [Page 12] a reawakening of the spirit of brotherhood and good-will among men, nor does it aim solely at the fostering of harmonious coöperation among individual peoples and nations. Its implications are deeper, its claims greater than any which the Prophets of old were allowed to advance. Its message is applicable not only to the individual, but concerns itself primarily with the nature of those essential relationships that must bind all the states and nations as members of one human family. It does not constitute merely the enunciation of an ideal, but stands inseparably associated with an institution adequate to embody its truth, demonstrate its validity, and perpetuate its influence. It implies an organic change in the structure of present-day society, a change such as the world has not yet experienced. . . . It calls for no less than the reconstruction and demilitarization of the whole civilized world—a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of its life, its political machinery, its spiritual aspiration, its trade and finance, its script and language, and yet infinite in the diversity of the national characteristics of its federated units.

Shoghi Effendi also points out that organic unity should not be confused with uniformity. Speaking of the teaching of Bahá’u’lláh, he explains that

It can conflict with no legitimate allegiances, nor can it undermine essential loyalties. Its purpose is neither to stifle the flame of a sane and intelligent patriotism in men’s hearts, nor to abolish the system of national autonomy so essential if the evils of excessive centralization are to be avoided. It does not ignore, nor does it attempt to suppress, the diversity of ethnical origins, of climate, of history, of language and tradition, of thought and habit, that differentiate the peoples and nations of the world. It calls for a wider loyalty, for a larger aspiration than any that has animated the human race. It insists upon the subordination of national impulses and interests to the imperative claims of a unified world. It repudiates excessive centralization on one hand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformity on the other. Its watchword is unity in diversity.

This concept of unity in diversity, though paradoxical, is a pervasive aspect of reality. The human body, for example, contains an extremely diverse collection of organs and tissues, each functioning in a unique way. Yet diversity is the basis for the healthy functioning of the body as an integrated system, as a whole that is more than a sum of parts. The Bahá’í teachings foster a political and social climate that reflects unity in diversity in the realm of human relationships,

The Bahá’í Faith’s vision of unity in diversity, which is the content of the desired social change, is intimately related to its vision of process, of how this unity will be achieved in practice. Any attempt to anticipate the process must start with a disclaimer, which has best been expressed by Shoghi Effendi:

To claim to have grasped all the implications of Bahá’u’lláh’s prodigious scheme for world-wide human solidarity, or to have fathomed its import, would be presumptuous on the part of even the declared supporters of His Faith. To attempt to visualize it in all its possibilities, to estimate its future benefits, to picture its glory, would be premature. . . .

All one may hope to do, then, is to achieve a limited understanding of the “Bahá’í model” of the processes of social change.

Features of Change Shared with Other Religions. The Bahá’í model of change shares certain features with other major religions, all of which stress a synergistic relationship between spiritual development and social progress. Each religion has facilitated a bond of [Page 13] love between the individual and his Creator. This devotion gives a unique force of motivation to the process of ethical reorientation called for in the teachings of the religion. The resulting transformation is reflected in deeds and in the patterns of social life, especially in the early history of the religion. Thus not only does the individual change the society by force of example, but so does the entire body of believers in its functioning as a community. When the religion is young, the community of believers becomes a model subculture that stands in stark contrast to the prevailing culture of the society at large. At first this causes persecution, because the power structures of the society perceive the community of believers as a threat. Ultimately, however, the salutary characteristics of the model subculture win over the hearts and minds of members of the larger society, resulting in the rapid expansion of the new religion. Anyone who has studied the early history of Christianity will find these stages of development familiar. A key point is that the model subculture does not achieve its transformative power by manipulating or subverting the political power structures within the prevailing society. Rather, it models a positive alternative by force of individual and collective example that persuades the rest of society to aspire to the same path of transformation.

Unique Features of the Bahá’í Model of Change. The Bahá’í model of change differs, however, from that of other world religions in that its sacred writings address conditions unique to the modern world; it provides a blueprint for a new social order. The spiritual assemblies that govern the affairs of Bahá’í communities are not just democratically elected bodies that fulfill the administrative and pastoral functions that would otherwise be the domain of clergy. They are the “nucleus” and “pattern” of a new world order “destined to embrace in the fullness of time the whole of mankind.” The Bahá’í Nineteen Day Feast is not merely the equivalent of a Sunday worship service. It is an “arena of democracy at the very root of society” that “integrates the spiritual, administrative and social processes of life” and “canalizes human expression in its varied forms toward the construction of a new civilization.”

Because of its focus on a new social order, the Bahá’í Faith places particular emphasis on the development of personal qualities that foster unity in diversity needed for a global civilization. For example, it stresses the elimination of racial prejudice through genuine, spontaneous, and informal fellowship among people of all races. The development of such moral qualities on the part of the individual is a key ingredient in the successful functioning of spiritual assemblies, and, conversely, these institutions channel the energy and the moral strength of individuals in order to promote constructive social processes.

Another unique feature of the Bahá’í model of change is that it provides principles that govern the functioning of spiritual assemblies and of social institutions in general. One of the most important of these is consultation, a term Bahá’ís use for the decision-making process used by assemblies, committees, or other groups that must solve problems. The principles of consultation relate not so much to the technical aspects of the decision-making process as to the attitudes and motivations of the participants and the spirit that prevails in the process. The following are seven characteristics of a consultative decision-making process distilled from the Bahá’í writings:

1. It is a principled process. The group reaches decisions by consciously applying spiritual and ethical principles to the issue at hand.
2. It is an investigative or truth-seeking process rather than an adversarial process. The goal is to ascertain the facts, identify the issues, clarify the relevant principles, and find the best solutions.[Page 14]
3. It is a service-oriented process rather than a power-seeking process. An individual opinion or idea is a contribution to the group’s investigation and is the property of the group, not the originator. Each participant must be open to changing his or her opinions based on the discussion.
4. It is a communicative process. The frank expression of views is important. Listening and learning are equally important.
5. It is a synthesizing rather than a compromising process. It takes advantage of the diverse concerns and ideas of the participants to reach decisions that reflect a richer understanding of the issues than the individuals would achieve working separately.
6. It is an inclusive process. Diversity is valued. Everyone works to overcome prejudice. Everyone is listened to and taken seriously as a contributor.
7. It is a community-building process. The group is an organism whose whole is more than a sum of its parts. Primary value is, therefore, placed on its harmony and cohesiveness. Squabbling and factionalism are guarded against; friendship and love are promoted. Unanimous decisions are preferable, but even when a decision must be made by majority vote, its implementation is supported by everyone.

The process of consultation is not perfected easily or quickly. It demands effort. It requires that the participants be actively developing the qualities that enable the principles of consultation to work: purity of motive, radiance of spirit, detachment, humility, patience, and a spirit of unselfish service.

To Bahá’ís consultation is a spiritual act, expressing on the collective level a spiritual view of life. One of the conditions for successful consultation is communion with God; hence Bahá’ís begin the process with prayers. This reflects a broader principle that social, administrative, and governmental processes should be as much an expression of spirituality as is the conduct of an individual. The concept is a profound, not to say startling, aspect of the Bahá’í model of social change.

There is a great contrast between the Bahá’í consultative process and the political processes of society at large. The latter are often corrupted by the influence of special interests, an atmosphere of bigoted partisanship, a petty adversarialism, a spirit of elitism and exclusiveness, and the primacy of expediency and power-seeking over service and truth-seeking. Such conditions are not conducive to principled, conscientious, and intelligent policy making, and until they are changed, it is unlikely that government will be a truly effective mechanism through which social problems can be addressed. The same criticism applies, to a greater or lesser extent, to other institutions that guide the affairs of society.

The reason the development of the skills of consultation is so central to the Bahá’í model of social change is that a primary purpose of the Bahá’í Faith is to “incubate” a new kind of political culture, one that is conducive to the emergence of a mature global civilization. The effectiveness and practicality of this new model is demonstrated by the successes of Bahá’í communities all over the world in projects of grass-roots social and economic development.

Bahá’í Differences in Approach to Social Change. The consultative principles underlying Bahá’í institutions and community life promote an approach to the process of social change different from that of many organizations sharing the same progressive social goals. An examination of some of the contrasts sheds light on the Bahá’í model of social change.

In observance of the principles of their Faith, Bahá’ís avoid involvement in partisan politics and political fights. They also shun [Page 15] civil disobedience and abide by the laws of the countries in which they live. Many friendly critics see such principles as limitations placed on the ability of the Bahá’í community to promote social change. When understood in proper context, however, the principles reflect a potent method of change. At the root lies the force of example in creating a positive alternative based on human values that transcend political conflicts.

For many, however, avoiding partisan politics and obeying one’s government are not satisfactory positions. They frequently ask how the Bahá’í teachings deal with tyrannical governments and oppressive systems. Are not movements of revolution or nonviolent resistance appropriate under certain circumstances? The Bahá’í answer lies in the developmental view of society in the Bahá’í writings. As in the case of an individual, human society must pass through an adolescent stage in its development. The characteristics of adolescence are surging energy, passion, and a spirit of rebellion. Adolescents have discovered many of the powers of adulthood and want to assert their independence but have not yet gained the calm and wisdom of adulthood. Society today has many adolescent characteristics. Humanity has discovered the scientific method and has greatly increased its mastery over the physical world. A spirit of freedom has swept the planet, toppling dynasties and giving masses of people an unprecedented role in shaping their affairs. Given the oppressive nature of the immature social and political systems of the past, the spirit of rebellion underlying political changes has had an appropriate role in the historical development of human society.

Many modern thinkers and activists are the philosophical heirs of the rebellion-inspired model of social change. The notions of dissent, protest, political demands, and civil disobedience permeate their vocabulary. Many of them tend to dehumanize those whom they see as “oppressors,” to question authority, often to the point of questioning the validity of the concept of authority, and to exalt individual liberty for its own sake. In fact, the excessive promotion of individualism has become a hallmark of modern Western societies.

While the sincerity and commitment of social and political activists is admirable, the Bahá’í teachings indicate that the model of social change that inspires their methods is not the ultimate model, even though it is a manifestation of a necessary phase in social history. Civilization is undergoing its transition from adolescence to adulthood. This transition is characterized by two processes. One is the collapse and disintegration of institutions that reflect and perpetuate archaic values. The other is the building of new institutions that promote the unity of the human family. The purpose of the Bahá’í Faith is to foster the latter process. It, therefore, promotes a new model of social change, which may be termed the adult model to distinguish it from the adolescent model of modern political activists.

Table I contrasts the characteristics of the two models of social change. One should not condemn the adolescent model but should realize that this model can only carry human social evolution to a certain point. Neither should one expect an abrupt transition at which the adolescent model stops operating and the adult model takes over. The transition takes place over time, and the working models of many activists often include elements from both models.

Table I. Models of Social Change

Adolescent	Adult
Rebellion and dissent	Consultation and community-building
Promotion of ideology	Exemplification of human values
Conflict driven	Unity driven
Civil disobedience	Civil obedience
Dehumanizing oppressors	Healing oppressors
Freedom and individualism promoted for their own sake	Freedom as a means to ampler manifestations of human achievement
Mistrust of authority and institutions	Upholding the concept of authority and institutions

[Page 16] The Bahá’í community is not rooted in a spirit of rebellion against the existing social order, nor does it align itself with specific governments, political factions, or ideologies. One reason for this is that Bahá’ís believe that the most effective way of correcting the ills of society is to display the characteristics of the society one wishes to build. Thus the emphasis is on building a new society by exemplifying the appropriate values rather than trying to destroy the existing social order.

Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings have universal appeal to the altruistic and spiritual aspirations of human beings. His call beckons the aristocrat as well as the peasant, the laborer as well as the entrepreneur, the statesman as well as the private citizen. Many ideologies, on the contrary, tend to single out particular groups or classes of people as the heroes or villains of history. Although some ideologies may be more in harmony with the Bahá’í teachings than others, the Bahá’í teachings are unique in presenting a comprehensive vision of change that addresses the spiritual, social, cultural, economic, and political realities of human life.

The means used to bring about social change are as important to Bahá’ís as the content of the changes. One purpose of the Bahá’í Faith is to promote a political culture that is nonadversarial and characterized by compassion and cooperation and that uses consultation and the promotion of solidarity as the “engines” of social change. The divisive climate of contemporary political cultures is regarded by Bahá’ís as a social ill in itself, even when the conflict and opposition are precipitated by legitimate issues. Ideological and political conflicts polarize to the extent that they promote a narrow-minded attachment to specific factions and ideologies, rather than fostering loyalty to the broader values that inspired their creation. This leads to an entrenched pattern of self-righteousness and defensiveness, which in turn prevents the kind of consensus-building that would enable diverse participants to discover shared values and apply them to the problems of society in new ways that synthesize insights springing from diverse perspectives.

The use of civil disobedience by modern activism illustrates the contrast between the adolescent and adult paradigms of change. Its popularity among activists is a legacy of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, both of whom used it with a great deal of success against oppressive social orders. The reason, however, that Gandhi and King wielded such moral and political force was that they were motivated by a desire to change the hearts of oppressors and help them see the truth. Therefore, while seeking justice, they also demonstrated a spirit of love that extended even to the oppressor. It was this spirit, rather than the use of civil disobedience, that exerted such a powerful influence. Much of the civil disobedience that occurs today, however, is not of the same moral caliber. It is merely a political strategy, a technique to generate publicity and win political victories. Many who use civil disobedience show hostility toward those whom they see as oppressors. The idea that the loving spirit and educative motivation are as important as the short-term political outcome has been largely forgotten.

The acceptance of civil disobedience as a routine instrument of change implies that individuals have the ultimate right to disobey or ignore any law with which they disagree. If such is the case, what is the purpose of having laws? Must we wait until the system becomes “perfect” before agreeing to abide by the outcome of the public consensus-building process that is encoded in laws? From the Bahá’í perspective, a “yes” answer to the latter question is self-contradictory because a spirit of respect for and cooperation with civic and legal processes is a prerequisite to the perfection of those processes. Therefore, the abuse of authority and the misuse of social institutions do not justify methods that tend to undermine the concept of authority and deny the legitimacy of the existence of institutions. For Bahá’ís a point of departure is to affirm the legitimacy of law and government as instruments of social justice and then to concentrate on the promotion of values that will ensure the proper use of these instruments. [Page 17] This is why Bahá’ís do not use civil disobedience as a method for change. (Even the refusal of Bahá’ís in Iran to recant their faith, an example of the rare conditions in which Bahá’ís disobey authority, is an act of spiritual self-protection, not an act of political protest.)

Ultimately, the only truly effective solution to oppression is a global one. The international community as a whole must create instruments to uphold standards of human rights and nonagression. In fact, the Bahá’í teachings envision the use of force by an international government against a recalcitrant national government. However, to Bahá’ís, the process involved in fostering a climate for the creation of such international peace instruments is not a process of revolt. A characteristic of movements of revolt is the dehumanization of “the oppressor.” Because of this, many revolutions merely replace one oppressor with another one. Therefore, to eliminate oppressive systems from the world, the vicious cycle must be broken at some point. Bahá’ís see even “the oppressor” as someone who can be engaged in a therapeutic relationship and healed by the force of example. This perspective is rooted in the life of Bahá’u’lláh Himself, Whose conduct and character often transformed His enemies and persecutors into devoted friends and supporters.

The Bahá’í community of South Africa provides an instructive example. In Bahá’í elections, a form of “affirmative action” is practiced. When a tie vote occurs, and one of the patties represents a disfranchised ethnic group, the tie is automatically broken in that person’s favor. At one point it became illegal in South Africa for Bahá’í spiritual assemblies to be racially integrated. In response the white Bahá’ís voluntarily gave up membership on the spiritual assemblies but pledged to abide by the authority of assemblies consisting only of blacks. Paradoxically, this act of obedience to the government made a morally compelling statement against white supremacy without confronting civil authorities in a hostile way. It demonstrated the validity of a moral principle as something that transcends partisan political loyalties and presented a unique appeal for change on the broadest humanitarian grounds.

The concept of civil disobedience is one manifestation of the degree to which individual liberty is exalted in Western cultures. While freedom of action and expression is indispensable to constructive social processes, the Bahá’í teachings warn against the indiscriminate and excessive promotion of liberty and individualism. The purpose of freedom is to enable human beings to fulfill the dual responsibilities of individual spiritual development and social progress, which implies that freedom should have limits. Not only should the force of law be respected, but the relationship between individuals and the governing institutions of society should be characterized by a spirit of cooperation and good will that recognizes mutual benefits. The institutions rely on the support, loyalty, and even the love of individuals, and, in turn, the well-being and development of individuals is fostered by the support of their institutions. This is the spirit of the social and administrative processes for which the Bahá’í community strives and a model for future relationships between governments and the governed, management and labor, parents and children, and other such relationships in society.

Conclusion

SOLVING the social problems facing the human race is not a simple task. It requires, first, forging a consensus on basic human values and goals for the evolution of society, and, second, creating the motivation to reshape both individual lives and social institutions so that they truly reflect these values and goals. Both these tasks require an appeal to the altruistic aspects of human nature, an appeal that is universal but at the same time powerful enough to influence the way in which people live. Political and economic restructuring is not enough; neither are approaches based solely on the development of the individual. Today, more than ever before, the human being is a social creature whose life is [Page 18] interlinked with the life of the whole human race and the planet Earth.

In the Bahá’í view, the spiritual nature of human beings, their yearning for transcendence, and their relationship with their Creator comprise an indispensable foundation for social change. Despite the conflicting dogmas that have been promoted in the name of religion and the fanaticism that has marred its name, a study of the original teachings of the great religions and the spiritual experiences attending their birth reveals a striking universality. Examination of the great religions also shows that their Founders were individuals empowered to exemplify godly attributes, thereby attracting the hearts and transforming the characters of people. Thus the guidance they gave for the development of the individual and the evolution of society wielded an appeal that was both universal and powerful. Despite the abuses of religion throughout history, it has had a “preponderating influence on . . . the vital expressions of civilization” and “its indispensability to social order has repeatedly been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.”

Bahá’u’lláh, therefore, is not merely the Founder of a new spiritual movement. He is the most recent agent of a “civilizing process” that encompasses humankind’s entire spiritual history. His teachings integrate the spiritual, social, political, and economic aspects of life and offer a holistic solution to the problems of the planet in the twentieth century. Most importantly to Bahá’ís, He speaks with the Voice of Divinity and His message has the transforming power that makes the coming of age of the human race not only possible but inevitable.

Certitude

On these tattered wings I fly,
just above the barren ground.
My path is clear, my goal is near and quiet is the sound.
Though darkness shrouds my burdened soul,
and peace, it seems, does not abound.
My path is clear, my goal is near and quiet is the sound.
This darkness is so thick and dense,
its height and depth cannot be found.
My path is clear, my goal is near and quiet is the sound.
That Light I see ahead of me,
has cast Its magic spell around.
My path is clear, my goal is near and quiet is the sound.

—J. R. Harrington

Copyright © 1991 by J. R. Harrington

[Page 19]

[Page 20]

[Page 21]

The Mystery of the
Manifestation

BY DAVID M. EARL

Copyright © 1991 by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States.

He Who hath been manifested is the
Hidden Mystery, the Treasured symbol. . . .
—Bahá’u’lláh

IN THE Bahá’í teachings on the nature of existence the varieties or conditions of existence are limited to three: Deity, prophethood, and servitude. To understand the second station—prophethood—one must have a clear understanding of the first and third stations.

The station of Deity is that of God, the ultimate or original Cause. The station of servitude includes humanity and the entire created universe other than the Prophets, or Manifestations, of God. It is called the station of servitude to underscore its essential quality—that of being utterly dependent on God and the Manifestations for its existence and spiritual progress.

The station of prophethood, the object of this study, embraces the Teachers Whom the world knows as Prophets or Messengers of God and Who in the Bahá’í Faith are designated as Manifestations. The term “Manifestation” calls attention to their status as a special creation, a category distinct from that of humankind in general, one that transcends humanity while yet a part of it. It alludes to the role of these personages in manifesting the attributes of God in the created universe, even though they are something other than the Godhead itself.

At the same time, since the station of prophethood involves aspects of servitude as well as of Deity, the Manifestation is able to serve as a unique intermediary between God and humanity. Thus, depending on the context, in the Bahá’í writings the word “Manifestation” may refer to the spiritual essence of all Manifestations collectively or to specific individuals (for example, Jesus, Muḥammad, Bahá’u’lláh) Who have home that rank.

The concept of the Manifestation is so basic to Bahá’í belief that gaining some comprehension of it may be likened to essential preparation for a spiritual [Page 22] journey. Bahá’u’lláh warns that the journey is not easy, for the Manifestation is a Hidden Mystery. But the journey is not without guideposts, which can be found in the three sources accepted as the standard of Bahá’í belief: the writings of the Herald of the Bahá’í Faith (the Báb), of its Founder (Bahá’u’lláh), and of the Center of its Covenant (‘Abdu’l-Bahá).

Moreover, an examination of passages in the New Testament shows that in many cases the same truths and guideposts found in the Bahá’í writings were also present in early Christian belief. Occasionally the Christian teachings may have been ignored or misunderstood by later generations; however, a careful study of the New Testament reveals substantial evidence that what Jesus taught regarding the Manifestations was what the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh were to teach in their turn: the more recent explanation is more detailed, but the essence is the same, thus providing a fascinating example of the unchanging nature of eternal truth and an unbroken chain of guideposts leading to an understanding of the station of the Manifestation of God.

The Transcendent Nature of God

PREPARATION for the spiritual journey of understanding the mystery of the Manifestation begins when human beings begin to study God, defined above as the ultimate or original Cause, He Whose existence preceded creation. However, as denizens of the third condition of existence, they can never hope to grasp His Essence. In The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Bahá’u’lláh writes that God is an unknowable Essence, indescribable and incomprehensible. There is not even any physical sign that can indicate His presence or absence. In the opening lines of the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Bahá’u’lláh defines God in terms of what He is not: He is “the Eternal that perisheth not, the Everlasting that declineth not, the Self-Subsisting that altereth not.” The concepts of the transcendence and inaccessibility of God, mentioned frequently by Bahá’u’lláh, are repeated also in the writings of the Báb in the strongest of terms.

The Necessity for the Existence of the Manifestation

DESPITE the transcendence of God and the mystery of His existence outside the world of creation, there is another side to His nature: It is His will to be known and loved by human beings. In The Hidden Words Bahá’u’lláh makes such statements as:

O Son of Being! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee.

O Son of Being! Thy Paradise is My love; thy heavenly home, reunion with Me. Enter therein and tarry not. . . .

[Page 23]

O Son of Being! My love is My stronghold; he that entereth therein is safe and secure, and he that turneth away shall surely stray and perish.

Bahá’u’lláh’s statements seem to present a serious dilemma: a God Who is inaccessible and unknowable ordains that humankind should love Him and seek the refuge of His love. If such references were the only guideposts, an impasse would exist; free will is implied in that humankind has the option to accept or to reject God’s offer, but the penalty for rejection is dire in the stern admonitions of Bahá’u’lláh and the Báb: “My love can in no wise reach thee”; “he that turneth away shall surely stray and perish”; and “souls that have shut themselves out as by a veil can never partake of the outpourings of the grace of God.”

It is partly to solve the dilemma, Bahá’u’lláh tells us, that a loving God sends His Manifestations: since the created universe is categorically incapable of perceiving or comprehending the Essence of God, He causes spiritual Beings to appear “in the noble form of the human temple.” Their duty is to reveal in human language the mysteries of the nature of God and of His imperishable Essence. At the same time the Manifestations should never be considered as physical incarnations of the Essence of God, which is impossible.

Each Manifestation during His lifetime is the representative of God on earth; His knowledge originates with and His authority is from God. Bahá’u’lláh states that whoever recognizes them has recognized God and whoever testifies to the truth of their Revelation has testified to the truth of God. He also points out in forceful terms that knowledge of and attainment to God are impossible except through knowledge of and attainment to the Manifestations.

Thus there is a solution to the dilemma. In the physical form of a human being, the Manifestation appears on earth clothed with divine authority; His tongue and pen bringing spiritual truth and hope to human hearts.

In an earlier day Jesus said: “The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me” (John 14:24). Bahá’u’lláh, in the opening lines of His book of laws (Kitáb-i-Aqdas), otdains the role of the Manifestation as the representative of God in these words:

The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation.

The statement is clear: God’s offer is conditioned on human beings’ taking [Page 24] the first step—the recognition of the Manifestation. But this means that an entirely new challenge has been opened up. It now becomes one’s duty to see what is meant by recognizing the Manifestation, or, in other words, what sort of spiritual truths are awaiting in the Bahá’í Revelation. And before traveling very far in this direction, one realizes that in the created universe the beginning point is the Primal Will.

The Primal Will

BAHÁ’U’LLÁH and the Báb use the “Primal Will” to designate what in Christianity has often been called the Word of God. In Bahá’í usage the two terms are interchangeable, and both are employed on occasion.

The Primal Will is defined as the first entity that emanated from God. Because it existed before creation, it shares the divine attributes of being outside time and space. This means that the Primal Will is unchanging, eternal, without beginning or end. However, while the Primal Will is pre-existent with regard to all other created things, it does not share in the pre-existence of God because its existence is not absolute, but contingent or dependent on God.

The concept of the Primal Will sheds new light on the familiar quotation from the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:1,14). A deeper meaning is given to the text when the passage is phrased this way: “The Primal Will existed before the creation; the Primal Will was with God; and the Primal Will shared the attributes of God. . . . The Primal Will was given the noble form of the human temple, and was manifested on earth.” A fundamental harmony is apparent between the words from the Gospel of John and the Bahá’í understanding of the Primal Will. According to the explanation of Bahá’u’lláh and the Báb, whenever a Manifestation is sent to earth, the Primal Will is manifested in or through Him.

Like the sun, which rises and sets continuously while remaining always the same sun, the Primal Will is eternal and unchanging. It reappears with splendor in every Prophet and illumines every Age. It functions as the inner reality of each Manifestation in turn, establishing a pure channel for His relationship to God.

But the rising and setting of the sun on one day is part of a process that continues indefinitely and will be repeated on every day to come. In the same way, the coming of every Revelation involves the promise of another; as the Primal Will has appeared in a succession of Prophets in the past, it must necessarily continue to be revealed in timeless sequence on into the future. Thus, while the major purpose of each revelation is to deal with the problems [Page 25] of its day, part of its purpose is to prepare the way for the next. The concepts of the “return” or the “second coming” are related to this aspect of the Message.

The Báb states that God has promised He will never inaugurate a religion that He will not renew in the future; this is another way of saying that there can be no end to the succession of divine Manifestations. A similar promise of future revelations is found in the teachings of Jesus: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:12-13).

Attributes of the Manifestation

EXPLORING the relationship between the Primal Will and the Manifestation of God leads one to a further stage of discovery—an understanding of the attributes of the Manifestation. To those exalted Personages whom He ordains to be His Manifestations, God assigns a special, dual nature consisting of spiritual and physical (or human) aspects. The spiritual aspect is the Primal Will. The physical aspect is His human body, pertaining to the world of matter.

Likewise, each Manifestation has a special station: Each is the voice of God Himself. At the same time each is a human with His own personality. In the first station there is no distinction between the Manifestation and God, except that He is His servant; in the second station, the Manifestation proclaims, “I am but a man like you.”

The interplay between the two stations can be seen in the contrast between the following statements of Jesus: The divine Servant says, “I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me” (John 8:42). The human Teacher exclaims, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God” (Matt. 19:17).

Because of the dual station or nature of the Manifestation, it follows that He possesses dual sets of attributes, reflecting respectively His divine and human aspects. It is, of course, the dominating presence of the Primal Will that provides the divine attributes and distinguishes the Manifestation completely from the generality of mankind. Three aspects of the Manifestation particularly illusuate His dual nature: the Manifestation as Pre-Existent, the Manifestation as Agent of Creation, and the Manifestation as Agent of Salvation.

The Manifestation as Pre-Existent. Since the unchanging Primal Will, existing before the creation of the universe, becomes the inner reality of every Manifestation, these Revelators necessarily share in the attribute of pre-existence. [Page 26] The Báb wrote that, since He had believed in God before the creation, God had raised Him up in every Revelation. Bahá’u’lláh likens pre-existence to the “School of God,” saying that God had raised up this school before the earth and heavens existed and that He (Bahá’u’lláh) had entered it before the act of creation.

A well-known statement of Jesus also illuminates the concept of the Manifestation as pre-existent: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). Another statement demonstrates that Jesus was fully aware of His own pre-existence: “O Father, glorify thou me . . . with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).

The Manifestation as Agent of Creation. While understanding the Manifestation as pre-existent is somewhat familiar, it may be difficult to conceive of God’s utilizing any agent through whom to channel His absolute power, for God is known as the Creator. Yet alongside scriptural references to God as the Creator, there are other references describing the Primal Will, the “Word,” or even the Manifestation as the agent by which the act of creation has been carried out.

For example, in The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Bahá’u’lláh writes that by God’s wish, “which is the Primal Will itself,” all creation has emerged from nothingness into the realm of being. This brief statement testifies to the inescapable role of the Primal Will in the creation act. The idea is presented even more strongly in the Tablet of Wisdom, where Bahá’u’lláh indicates that the “Word of God” (Primal Will), far from being a vague figure of speech, is itself an entity with its own powerful functions:

The irresistible Word of God . . . is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof. . . .

. . . The Word of God. . . . became manifest without any syllable or sound and is none but the Command of God which pervadeth all created things. . . . It is an entity far removed above all that hath been and shall be.

A careful reading of the passage suggests that, while God must necessarily be considered as the ultimate Source of the power that produced the heavens and the earth, the Primal Will was the immediate Agent through which the action of creation was carried out.

As previously indicated, the attributes of the Primal Will or Word are the inner reality of the Manifestations. If the Primal Will is the agent of creation, one would expect each Manifestation in turn to possess a creative power. The Bahá’í writings show evidence that such is the case. Speaking of the Manifestations in general, Bahá’u’lláh says, “All else besides these Manifestations, live by the operation of their Will, and move and have their being through the outpourings of their grace.” Furthermore, the same power is held by individual [Page 27] Manifestations: the Báb wrote to Muḥammad Sháh, saying, “I am the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things.” Referring to Bahá’u’lláh, one of the major Bahá’í prayers states that through Him “the letters B and E have been joined and knit together.” (Joining the letters B and E to form the word “BE” is a poetic reference to creation.)

The New Testament shows abundantly that the early Christian church accepted the identity of the Word with Jesus and with the creative power. For example, with reference to the Word, the Gospel of John states “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). To mention only a few additional sources, Paul’s letter to the Ephesians refers to “God, who created all things by Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3:9); the Epistle to the Hebrews states, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11:3).

The Manifestation as Agent of Salvation. A third aspect of the Manifestation that is greatly emphasized in Christianity is His station as Agent of Salvation. In the Bahá’í writings this aspect is considered as a fundamental, integral, and undeniable part of the Manifestation’s role without being given exclusive attention.

The Báb explains that the worship of God is acceptable only when accompanied by faith in the Manifestation of the age. The reason is that acceptance of the believer by God is dependent on acceptance by the Manifestation, and the world of creation has no other avenue of access to God. For those who are faithful in the Cause of God, forgiveness of sins is promised; in other words, obedience to the Manifestation brings salvation and eternal life.

Bahá’u’lláh’s explanation of salvation is equally unequivocal: “No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.” There is remarkable agreement in tone between Bahá’u’lláh’s statement and the oft-repeated words of Jesus: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). The linkage between acceptance of the Manifestation and salvation may well be considered as a fundamental truth, applying to every Manifestation in His own time. However, the Báb warns that, even though salvation and paradise are the natural results of faithfully worshipping God, attainment of them should not be the motive of one’s actions: that which is truly acceptable is to worship God for His own sake, “without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.”

The Station of the Manifestation

THE SECOND condition of existence, the station of prophethood, has been seen to include both divine and human elements and to be directly linked to God [Page 28] through the agency of the Primal Will. The one central question that remains concerns the station of the Manifestation—is He God or not God? The main problem is not a lack of informative passages from scripture, but the fact that, at first glance, some of the statements dealing with the Manifestation seem to be incompatible with or contradicted by other statements.

It is important to clear away preconceptions and make a fresh start so that the reason for the difficulty emerges—namely, the Manifestation simultaneously possesses both divine and human aspects, but a statement that is true of His divine nature will not necessarily—or even probably—be true of His human nature.

In scriptural passages about the Manifestations it is easy to distinguish three basic categories of statements applicable to them: Identity with God; Unity with Each Other; and Distinction from Each Other. These categories refer respectively to attributes arising from the Manifestation’s divine nature, the influence of the Primal Will, and His human nature.

Identity of the Manifestations with God. Many passages in the Bahá’í writings call attention to the divine nature of the Manifestation. One aspect of such identity with God is described as an absolute identity: “Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: ‘I am God!’ He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto.” Of similar purport are the words of Jesus: “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).

Another aspect of identity with God is what may be termed mirror identity. It is described in statements likening the Manifestation to a mirror that reflects nothing but the Beauty and Glory of God.

Related to the mirror concept is Bahá’u’lláh’s statement that individuals who have recognized the Manifestation have recognized God; in a similar vein is the statement of Jesus: “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also” (John 14:7).

Another way to explain the full inner meaning of identity with God is summarized by Bahá’u’lláh in the following passage emphasizing the absolute identity of the Manifestation’s actions with the Will of God:

The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself.

Unity of the Manifestations. While each Manifestation shares an identity with God, each also shares an identity with all other Manifestations. The “essential unity” of the Manifestations derives from the all-pervading influence of the [Page 29] Primal Will, which, as mentioned, is manifested in every Prophet age after age. Since the inner reality of each Manifestation is the same unchanging Primal Will, it follows inevitably that all the Manifestations share a spiritual unity. From this basic truth flow several corollaries such as the following:

• All the Prophets of God without exception are the embodiments of His attributes. Even though outwardly they may appear to differ in the intensity of their revelation, inwardly each one has been endowed with all the attributes of God.

• The actions of each Manifestation are ordained by God and reflect His Will and purpose; to discriminate in any way between their persons, messages, or actions is to disbelieve in God and to repudiate His signs.

• No distinction at all can be made between the Manifestations of God. Should any one of them proclaim “I am the return of all the Prophets,” He speaks the truth. The identity of all the Prophets is also referred to in these striking words of God addressed to the Báb: “No one hath been or will ever be invested with prophethood other than Thee, nor hath any sacred Book been or will be revealed unto any one except Thee.”

Distinction of the Manifestations from Each Other. The distinction of the Manifestations from each other is based on the historical fact of the appearance of the successive Manifestations. Each Manifestation lives on earth at a particular time in history; possesses a distinct name, personality, and mission; and brings a particular Revelation. For such reasons, humankind misled by superficialities supposes that fundamental disagreements between the Manifestations exist.

Like the changes in the moon, the apparent variation in the light of the Manifestations is not a quality of the light itself but rather is due to the varying receptivity of an ever-changing world. Every Manifestation is faced with a different situation and must respond to the need of His own age. Like a good physician, He must prescribe for the ailment of a specific patient at a specific time. There is also another side to the Manifestation’s role as a physician—He is constrained by the necessity not to reveal more than the world can bear in a specific age. Thus for various reasons the content of every revelation must differ, as every Manifestation in turn bears a distinct Message and reveals Himself in a specific way.

Summary of the Station of the Manifestation. A spiritual journey examining the nature of the Manifestation—the Hidden Mystery—reveals many aspects of the nature of God, the reason for the existence of the Manifestation, and the attributes and station of the Manifestation. In attempting to resolve the question as to whether the Manifestation is God or not, a pair of assertions may be helpful:

(a) He is God. (b) He is not God.

If one is defining God, only (a) is true. However, if one is defining the Manifestation, both (a) and (b) are true because the Manifestation has both [Page 30] divine and human aspects. The journey has shown how this is possible, if traditional patterns of thought are discarded. Bahá’u’lláh affirms that such is the way to understanding:

In every instance they [the Manifestations] have voiced an utterance that would conform to the requirements of the occasion, and have ascribed all these declarations to Themselves, declarations ranging from the realm of divine Revelation to the realm of creation, and from the domain of Divinity even unto the domain of earthly existence. Thus it is that whatsoever be their utterance, whether it pertain to the realm of Divinity, Lordship, Prophethood, Messengership, Guardianship, Apostleship or Servitude, all is true, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[Page 31]

Crimson Quest

To find the Rose

Seek first the bud

And travel the thorn-studded stem.

Stinging and bringing with each

Scarlet wound

One drop of the Flower’s hue.

Hold fast the central

Arching branch

‘Gainst violent tempest-blow.

Shed fear and then hear over discord

And clamor

The resounding Clarion Call.

Reach out. Climb through

Gathering thickness

Past leaves of razor-toothed edge.

Keen-eyed, see clearly the red-tipped

Emerald

Valiant Quickening Flame.

Watchful, await

Now transcendent

As green fetters give way and unfold,

Escape their hard sepal-prison and

Bow first to

The sweet-scented Bloom.

Breath deep, inhale

The new splendor,

Like gems ruby petals unsealed.

Brilliant and fragrant in full

Crimson Glory

The Ancient Beauty behold.

—Donna Samuelson Cluett

Copyright © 1991 by the National Spiritual Assembly of
the Bahá’ís of the United States.

[Page 32]

Canterbury Cathedral

Enter in peace

whisper the Name

to my stones

they will

vibrate to it

carry the message

down the ages

come

bring in the glow

of Faith renewed

—Anneke Buys

Copyright © 1991 by Anneke Buys

Flashes

—faces

and you, weeping

no one saying a word

but

hands smiles love

reassure

—singing on stage

audience

singing back at us

arms linked

smiles through tears

reciting

the favourite poem

feeling

people will remember

all candles

lightening

a private night.

—Anneke Buys

Copyright © 1991 by Anneke Buys

[Page 33]

Authors & Artists

BRIAN AULL, who holds a doctorate in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a member of the technical staff of the MIT Lincoln Laboratory. He has just completed a one-year leave of absence to serve as visiting professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at National Cheng-Kung University in Taiwan.

ANNEKE BUYS makes a first appearance in World Order. She has published poems in Dutch, English, and Esperanto.

DONNA SAMUELSON CLUETT, a teacher and writer, also makes a first appearance in World Order. She teaches journalism and English at a junior high school in St. Croix.

DAVID M. EARL, a retired professor of history at Eastern Michigan University, and an early contributor to World Order, has been interested in comparative religion for many years. His many publications include Emperor and Nation in Japan.

JAMES R. HARRINGTON, a former U.S. Air Force pilot and navigator and Congressional auditor, makes fine arts peace posters with his wife.

ART CREDITS: Cover design by John Solarz; cover photograph by Mark Sadan; p. 1, photograph by Jay Conrader; p. 3, photograph by Steve Garrigues; p. 8, photograph by Steve Garrigues; p. 19, photograph by Steve Garrigues; p. 20, photograph by Charlotte Hockings; p. 30, painting by Carolyn J. Rex.

[Page 34]