WORLD ORDER
APRIL 1937
IS SCIENCE TO BLAME? • EDWARD B. MESERVEY
YOUTH HAS NEW DOCTRINES • HELEN HARDY
LEARNING TO LIVE TOGETHER • MARTHA L. ROOT
UNITY OF NATIONS • STANWOOD COBB
CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE
APRIL 1937 VOLUME 3 • NUMBER 1
THE DIVINE TRUST • EDITORIAL ............................................................... 1
IS SCIENCE TO BLAME? • EDWARD B. MESERVEY ................................... 3
THE MANIFESTATION • ALBERT B. ENTZMINGER .................................... 8
YOUTH HAS NEW DOCTRINES • HELEN HARDY ...................................... 17
UNITY OF NATIONS • STANWOOD COBB .............................................. 20
WORLD ORDER OF BAHÁ’U’LLÁH, III • MARY COLLISON .................... 26
A STUDY OF CHURCH ORGANIZATION, II • G. A. SHOOK ............. 29
TWO HOLY SEPULCHERS • ADELBERT MÜHLSCHLEGEL ...................... 35
LEARNING TO LIVE TOGETHER: INTERVIEW • MARTHA L. ROOT ....... 37
DR. HERBERT A. MILLER: ILLUSTRATION .......................................................... 38
STAR GAZERS: POEM • STANTON A. COBLENTZ .................................... 40
Change of address should be reported one month in advance.
WORLD ORDER is published monthly in New York, N. Y., by the Publishing Committee of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada. EDITORS: Stanwood Cobb and Horace Holley. BUSINESS MANAGER: C. R. Wood. PUBLICATION OFFICE: 135 East 50th Street, New York, N. Y. EDITORIAL OFFICE: 119 Waverly Place, New York. N. Y.
SUBSCRIPTIONS: $2.00 per year, $1.75 to Public Libraries. Rate to addresses outside the United States, $2.25, foreign Library rate, $2.00, Single copies, 20 cents. Checks and money orders should be made payable to World Order Magazine, 135 East 50th Street, New York, N. Y. Entered as second class matter, May 1, 1935, at the post office at New York, N. Y., under the Act of March 3, 1879. Contents copyrighted 1937 by BAHA'I PUBLISHING COMMITTEE.
April 1937, Volume 3, Number I.
WORLD ORDER
APRIL, 1937. VOLUME THREE, NUMBER ONE.
THE DIVINE TRUST
EDITORIAL
AFTER countless ages of unending struggle to wrest a livelihood from soil, from forest and from sea, humanity came to this modern era when the miraculous blessing of science descended as from a higher world.
In that blessing, the race for the first time found itself able to produce the means of existence over and above the pressing necessity of daily food. The human population underwent a tremendous increase, yet science and industry have kept steady pace with each expanding need. The modern habit of mind has come to be that far more than a mere sustenance is required for human beings. We measure the daily effort of business by the surplus it can assure. Below that surplus we place the criminal who is rationed in his prison cell, the soldier existing under supreme emergency, and those who are burdened by some dire personal misfortune. For the rest, the “normal” life is one taking surplus for granted.
At the very heart of this immeasurable productivity, however, we have fostered an evil force of destruction which can, in a few months, completely obliterate the results of years of work and enterprise, and even threaten the very instruments upon which production now depends. Like a serpent in the garden, like a poison in the atmosphere, the evil force of militarism offsets the genius of the world’s scientific and industrial leadership, and throws back the average man to the unremitting jungle strife of a bygone age.
The world cannot possess both
security and war. It cannot reconcile
[Page 2]
the means of surplus with the agency
of destruction. It cannot serve the
master of progress and at the same
time pay tribute to the consummation
of all evil that has ever existed on
earth.
During the nineteenth century, statesmen began to realize the possibility of social insurance. In country after country, laws were passed setting up systems by which the benefits of security and the blessings of surplus might be made available to the sick, the aged, the crippled and the unemployed. Kings and parliaments, senates and legislatures have joined forces to enact new laws and establish new standards to replace the personal and all-inadequate private charity which had attempted to relieve the burden of distress. A new and higher sense of trusteeship began to penetrate the minds of rulers, of the aristocracy and of the wealthy and powerful in democratic lands. The absolute irresponsibility which produced the French Revolution became more and more discredited.
The institution of war, however, annuls and sterilizes every system of social insurance that now exists anywhere in the world. While that institution endures, the enactment of such systems by the nations is either complete hypocrisy, a temporary bribe to the poor for the prevention of rebellion, or the result of such blindness, such ignorance, such inability to see the plain facts of current history as to be unbelievable in a rational mankind.
Not one system of security will survive the next war whose first skirmishes have already begun. The poor are being betrayed, the unemployed are being deceived in every civilized nation today. There will be no harvest gathered from all the seeds of charity and good will sown in this sterile soil of modern civilization.
The rich, the powerful, the owners, the managers and the engineers of industry are equally deceived and not less betrayed by this vain hope and baseless expectation. There will be no industrial nor social peace until war, that evil we ourselves foster and cherish, is banished from the world. It is not the anxious statesmen who are to be made scape goats and given the blame for this supreme frustration. The roots of war lie in each and every human heart which still acts according to traditional standards of value. It would be well if the people of this age could come to heed such words as these, revealed by Bahá’u’lláh: “Lay not aside the fear of God, O kings of earth, and beware that ye transgress not the bounds which the Almighty hath fixed. . . . Know ye that the poor are the trust of God in your midst. Watch that ye betray not His trust.”
IS SCIENCE TO BLAME?
EDWARD B. MESERVEY
MODERN science is potentially of inestimable value to the human race. In the past, appreciation of the arts and realization of a higher culture have been of necessity the prerogatives of a few. For a long time the basis for the advance of civilization was slavery. In Egypt rose the majesty of the pyramids, in Greece the Parthenon, Rome created the Colosseum; but these great works were achieved only by the enslavement and suffering of thousands of human beings.
In contrast to this forced labor, the present age of machines presents almost unlimited possibilities. Now every man might control labor equal to that of an army of workers, and control it, not by force and cruelty, but by intelligence. This is the greatest gift which science has to give to man, freedom. No longer must he spend his hours from dawn till dark struggling for the bare necessities of existence. He need use only a small part of the day making a living; the rest he can spend in cultivating those qualities and abilities which distinguish him from other animals. Formerly a man toiled all day long in his fields or shop, but gradually the number of hours which a man must work have shortened from twelve or sixteen to eight, and may become much smaller. Also, the standard of living of the average worker now is much higher than even that of the nobles of past times. He lives in a heated house, reads by electric light, eats fresh fruit the year round, rides in a smoothly gliding train; his noble ancestors shivered in a draughty castle, read by flickering candles, ate putrid meat made unrecognizable by spice, and bumped over the land in a cart or on horseback.
There is another side to the picture, however,—a frightening and terrible side. Men have proved themselves, so far, incapable of controlling the power they have grasped, no fit masters of the machines they have created. Some of the outstanding uses of science today are for destruction; the threat of war hangs over the world. Suspicion and hatred and fear are ready to let loose upon mankind more dreadful carnage and more terrible suffering even than in the last war. Scientists in every nation are hard at work in their laboratories, manufacturing death, searching for agencies of destruction more certain, more horrible, more all-embracing than those of their neighbors.
Theoretically this Utopian machine
age of ours has a great advantage
[Page 4]
over past civilizations in the freedom
of every man from drudgery; practically,
there is no great difference.
A few have been able to obtain the
power, generally economic rather
than political, and are now enjoying
the fruits of the labor of the masses.
Instead of short working hours and
some leisure for all, there are long
hours for some, and for others total
unemployment, leading to degradation
and starvation. In reality, a great
many people today, far from living
a comfortable existence free from
worry over the maintenance of life,
are living in wretched hovels, perhaps
without light or heat, and never
know the satisfaction of a good
square meal.
Of course, the beneficent accomplishments of science are not solely possibilities for the future. A splendid example of present accomplishment may be seen in the prevention or control of epidemic diseases, in fact throughout the whole field of medicine. It is a far cry from the herb-brewing leech of the Middle Ages to the skilled specialist of the modern hospital. No longer is a sick man at the mercy of an ignorant barber, whose superior art consists only in the possession of a sharper pair of scissors; no longer is a man tormented in order to drive a devil from him nor bled to death to take the fever from his blood. Now the sanitary measures and careful nursing of the modern hospital are available, and the knowledge of an expert, based on the researches of a thousand scientists who have come before. Where modern science has extended its control there are few of the terrifying, irresistible plagues which formerly ravaged the earth; methodical prevention is slowly taking the place of superstitious attempts at cure.
In spite of such triumphs as those in the doctor’s profession we frequently hear of the “failure of science.” The basic cause of the failures referred to is the inability of the average person, at least in America, to evaluate it correctly. Americans are exceedingly familiar with the practical applications of science, but few of them have given much study to the deeper problems involved. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.” To a great many people science appears all-important now because it is becoming more and more spectacular. Being in the limelight, it eclipses more important values of life without which science itself would be futile and purposeless. Consequently we have a materialistic philosophy, everything can be explained on the basis of inert matter, or if it cannot be so explained now, it soon will be. Some scientists hold these views, but many of the greatest do not, and the limitations of science are often more apparent to scientists themselves than to laymen.
With such a philosophy the usual
objects of worship are money and
machines, worldly possessions. The
worship of material possessions is
not new in the world, but science has
been used as a justification for it, and
its inadequacy as a guiding principle
has often been demonstrated even
within the span of one life time.
[Page 5]
Many a man spends his whole life
scrabbling for money, ruthlessly pushing
ahead to “make his pile,” and
when he reaches the goal finds that
the reward is worthless, that by identifying
success with money he has
overlooked his chance for happiness.
Even when science is pursued as an
end in itself it may become a menace
to the happiness and very existence
of mankind rather than a means to a
better life.
In America—which may be typical of the world in this respect—machines are often considered valuable, not because of the good uses to which they may be put, but as a means of satisfying a craving for excitement or the ancient love of display. A man may feel that he must have an automobile, whether or not it will be useful to him for purposes of transportation, merely in order that people may know that he has a good salary, or, if he does use it, he may get his chief satisfaction from the speed at which it can go, regardless of danger to others, rather than from the fact that the saving of time on the road gives him more time for something worth while. Whenever some invention is made which enables us to attain greater speed, our only thought is, “This is wonderful, but we must go faster.” Our reaction to each new building or boat is, “We must have a bigger one;” to every new machine, “We must have more, more.”
What solution can be found for the problems which confront us? An English bishop once suggested that science take a ten year holiday, until men were sufficiently able to control themselves to be trusted with the power they were getting. Afterwards he qualified his statement by saying he meant that work be stopped in those sciences which might be used for destruction, but that work be continued in the fields of medicine and biology and others used for humanitarian purposes. Aside from the practical impossibility of stopping scientific research there are several difficulties with putting this plan into operation. In the first place physics and chemistry, the two bases for research in most other fields, would be just the ones to be removed. How could research be carried on in those other fields if the foundations were removed? On second thought, what assurance is there that the results of biological research would be used for humanitarian ends? Then, too, considering how slight is the progress which men have made in acquiring self-control in many centuries, it seems a little optimistic to believe that the next few years would be strikingly different. Furthermore, science could not remain at a standstill, without progress, or attempts at progress, there would certainly be regression. Soon whatever good science has to offer would be gone, but the attitudes built up in peoples, attitudes to which wrongful use of science has contributed, would still be there.
This suggestion might be termed
fantastic from a practical standpoint,
but the objections to it apply in general
to attempts to deal with the situation
in a negative way. We must
seek to develop a positive force to
counteract the power of materialism,
a force which instead of trying to impose
superficial restrictions from
[Page 6]
without, will change men’s attitudes,
working from within. The trouble
is not with science itself, so any attempt
at cure by stopping science
would be superficial. The true reason
for the present situation is to be
found in the nature of men themselves;
science can be used for good
or for evil, but it is only an instrument
in the hands of men. If men are evil
and selfish, no matter what means
they use to their end, it will appear
bad; taking away for a time one instrument
such as science would be
utterly useless, and blaming the instrument
for the evil wrought by its
user would be foolish. It may relieve
our feelings to put the blame on science,
just as we like to curse the hammer
if we pound a thumb with it, but
the real fault is in our own clumsiness.
Upon science we throw the responsibility,
and with a defeatist’s
attitude despair of being able to cope
with the complexity of present-day
problems.
What the man of today needs is not knowledge of the material world but spiritual guidance. The knowledge which men have gives them power to do what they will, almost, but it does not show them what they should wish to do, it does not give them a goal to aim at and to work for. Unfortunately, however, men have come to look upon science as all-important and thus to try to find in it an answer to the questions of values, while in reality the one purpose of natural science is to discover facts and obtain knowledge, not to dictate the uses to which that knowledge shall be put. So we need now a guide to help us distinguish the good from the bad, and a lasting faith to give us unity of purpose in the attempt to create order from the chaotic conflict of purposes and desires which block the way to any forward step. If we could lay aside our fear and distrust of our fellow men and substitute love and faith, our present problems, which are the reflection of the conflict and contradiction in men’s spiritual life, would be so altered that their solution could be found by the application of scientific method. The basic trouble then is in individual men, not in their economic system nor their mechanical inventions nor their forms of government. If men in general are spiritually sound, any system of economics or of politics can be made to function, some more successfully than others; on the other hand, inherently selfish people can never be made to govern themselves unselfishly by any trick system nor any clever code of laws.
We need a method of education
which will teach people to live social
and unselfish lives, make them capable
of enjoying true fellowship with
others. No school system, of course,
can accomplish such a result by itself,
but the present American system
seems hardly to make an attempt at
it. Is there any national system which
does? The one purpose of some of
our universities appears to be to turn
out as many recipients of degrees as
possible, and in the process they stuff
their students with a lot of facts and
dogmatic statements but miss the
chance to give them a real desire for
truth and a way to seek it. Some
institutions, and some teachers in all
institutions, are striving to inculcate
[Page 7]
truth, but with all too little success.
American students have a tendency
toward unthinking acceptance of
what is told them, and too often the
teacher is willing to let them receive
his words as final authority rather
than as guides in the search. Each
individual should be so trained, both
in school and in the family, that he
will be able to think for himself and
work out his problems according to
the light which he has. Science is
no bar to this; in fact, the undeviating
pursuit of truth, on the basis of evidence,
is the substance of the scientific
spirit and the scientific method, but
natural science does not furnish sufficient
light for the solution of our
present problems of human relationships.
When enough individuals can with inner conviction adopt an unselfish attitude, men can found a lasting society based on faith and love. A few men cannot found such a society by bringing external pressure to bear on the majority; it can be achieved only when a large group is ready to substitute for fear and hatred an active feeling of love and fellowship.
We are challenged today by the problem of keeping our social progress on a par with our scientific progress. This problem, moreover, is one which each individual must help to solve, for it cannot be solved if the majority of people sit waiting for some great statesman to pull an Utopia out of the hat. We must learn to control ourselves and the power which we have, or with that very power we shall destroy ourselves.
The author, a student at Dartmouth College, read this paper in the Religion section of the Third America-Japan Student Conference held at Tokyo.
THE MANIFESTATION
ALBERT P. ENTZMINGER
FROM the beginning of time man has ever been conscious of the existence of God. The most primitive of men worshipped the Deity, in a primitive manner perhaps, but nevertheless in conformity with their intelligence and such understanding as they believed they had of their Creator. It is not at all surprising that primitive man should have entertained such strange, and to us, such ridiculous ideas of Divinity because to them God was a mystery, even as today in this enlightened 20th Century, God to us is still a mystery. But science with her many instruments has greatly enlarged modern man’s vision. With astronomy and the telescope, physics and the microscope, chemistry and its analyses, science has brought to man a better understanding of the vastness of the universe, but in regard to our Creator, it has caused Him to become only more incomprehensible to us than ever (if such a thing is possible).
Primitive man in attempting to describe his Creator naturally limited God to his own comprehension, and man today, in attempting to understand God, in like manner, can limit God only to that which his finite mind can conceive. The created thing can never hope to comprehend its Creator, any more than a table can hope to understand the carpenter who built it. For as we attempt to conceive this universe with infinite space extending out from us in every direction beyond limit; infinite time without beginning or end; infinite worlds and infinite suns, the mysteries of which man can never hope to fathom; and then right on this earth, in the very air we breathe and the water we drink, the mystery of infinite living creatures, invisible to our eye, and of unbelievable minuteness; these serve to indicate to us that a Creator which surrounds all of creation certainly is incomprehensible to man who represents such a small part of His Creation.
In “Bahá’í Scriptures,” page 158, Bahá’u’lláh tells us that “God, singly and alone, abideth in His own Place, which is holy above space and time, mention and utterance, sign, description, and definition, height and depth,” and in the Gospel of St. John we are told, 1st Chapter, 18th Verse, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him.”
Now as for man—In Genesis we
are told that man is the creation of
God. In “The Gleanings,” page 70,
[Page 9]
Bahá’u’lláh tells us that “The purpose
of God in creating man hath
been, and will ever be, to enable him
to know his Creator and to attain His
Presence. To this most excellent aim,
this supreme objective, all the heavenly
Books and the divinely-revealed
and weighty Scriptures unequivocally
bear witness.” And again on page
77 He says, “From among all created
things He hath singled out for His
special favor the pure, the gem-like
reality of man, and invested it with a
unique capacity of knowing Him and
reflecting the greatness of His glory.”
To know God, and to reflect His glory, should therefore be the aim of Man, and that this task is not beyond our possibilities is evident because God has created us for this very purpose. But because there is a way of knowing Him, we are not to consider that man can directly contact the Incomprehensible, or that the created thing can know its Creator. The finite can never comprehend the infinite, nor can a lower plane comprehend a higher one—for instance a stone representing the mineral kingdom, or a tree representing the vegetable kingdom, can never understand man representing the human kingdom.
The manner in which man acquires knowledge of God, the Unknowable Essence, is through an Intermediary, or Mediator, for God from the beginning of time has provided mankind with His Manifestations to serve as “vehicles for the transmission of the Grace of Divinity itself”—in other words to serve as a channel through which man may be enabled to know Him. The theory of an intermediary between man and his Creator exists in all great religions today. Each points to a mediator as receiving from God the “light of divine splendor” and thence distributing it over the human world. The Jews look to Moses and the Christians to Christ. For others it is Buddha, or Muhammad, or Zoroaster. And in this day the Bahá’ís recognize in Bahá’u’lláh this same station as Intermediary between God and man.
Now the very nature of an intermediary immediately suggests to us a dual relationship, because it brings to us two extremes in relation to each other. Anything that might have but a single relationship could not be an intermediary, and so a Manifestation of God, serving as mediator between God, the Unknowable Essence, and Man, His Creation, must needs have a relationship with both the finite and the infinite. In other words he must have a divine relationship, and also a human relationship.
Considering first the divine relationship,
or the relation of the Manifestation
to God Himself, we have
the following words of Bahá’u’lláh
in “The Kitab-i-Iqan” (page 99),
“The door of the knowledge of the
Ancient of Days being thus closed in
the face of all beings, the Source of
infinite grace hath caused those luminous
Gems of Holiness to appear out
of the realm of the spirit, in the noble
form of the human temple, and be
made manifest unto all men, that
they may impart unto the world the
mysteries of the unchangeable Being,
and tell of the subtleties of His imperishable
Essence. These sanctified
Mirrors, these Day-Springs of ancient
[Page 10]
glory are one and all the Exponents
on earth of Him Who is the central
Orb of the Universe, its Essence and
ultimate purpose.” And again on page
103, Bahá’u’lláh further tells us “These
Tabernacles of holiness, these primal
Mirrors which reflect the light of unfading
glory, are but expressions of
Him Who is the Invisible of the Invisibles.
By the revelation of these
gems of divine virtue all the names
and attributes of God, such as knowledge
and power, sovereignty and dominion,
mercy and wisdom, glory,
bounty and grace, are made manifest.”
THUS the Intermediary, or the Manifestation, as we shall call Him, in the words of Bahá’u’lláh, “appears out of the realm of the spirit in the noble form of the human temple” and is thus “made manifest unto all men.” They impart unto the world the mysteries of God, by expressing to man the attributes of God. That God should reveal His attributes through his Manifestation rather than His Essence can be understood because it is not possible for God to reveal to man that which man cannot understand. Man cannot understand the nature of fire, but he does understand its attributes, such as heat and light, and in this manner he obtains a knowledge of fire. Likewise God’s attributes, expressed by His Manifestations, become our only means of knowing God, the Unknowable. The attributes of God, which Bahá’u’lláh has enumerated as knowledge, power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy, wisdom, glory, bounty and grace, are not realities in themselves and we can in no way consider them as independent existences. Detached from substance these attributes do not exist, because they are not substance, merely adjectives. So knowledge, power, sovereignty, dominion, mercy, etc., are not God, but only His attributes. They are not the Supreme Essence, and in recognizing them we have no cognizance of the Essence itself, only of them Its attributes. And so God in His mercy has created for man an Intermediary or Manifestation, reflecting His attributes to man, and so perfectly do they fulfill this mission that Bahá’u’lláh states in “The Kitab-i-Iqan” (page 100), “From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory. They are the Treasuries of divine knowledge, and the Repositories of celestial wisdom. Through them is transmitted a grace that is infinite, and by them is revealed the light that can never fade.”
So as we assume the Manifestation
so perfectly reflects God’s attributes
we naturally consider that He is
God. We speak of Him as God, in
similar manner as we speak of light
in reference to either the light or the
lamp. The lamp, which is really the
vehicle which transmits the light, is
often called a light, and the Manifestation
which is the “vehicle which
transmits the grace of divinity” likewise
is considered God. This conclusion
is therefore legitimate, and while
the followers of Moses, of Jesus, and
Muhammad, do not all consider their
prophet in this light, it is interesting
[Page 11]
to note that here in the western world,
the largest single division of Christianity
does regard Christ as God.
When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was in London in 1911 He was asked, “Is the Divine Manifestation God?” and his answer as given us in the book, “‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London” (page 61), was “Yes, but not in Essence.”
In the passages quoted from “The Kitab-i-Iqan,” Bahá’u’lláh speaks of the Manifestations as “Mirrors of Sanctity, expressing the central Orb of the Universe.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá again and again when speaking of the Manifestations of God described them in similar fashion, as Mirrors reflecting the light of the Divine Sun, and this picture so thoroughly covers the subject that every one should attempt to visualize His illustration.
Let us imagine a mirror placed in a room in such a position as to reflect the light of the sun. The mirror is to represent the Manifestation of God and the sun is to represent God, or the Divine Essence. A person might then say that he saw two suns; one in the sky and one in the mirror, a statement that could not be disproved. And yet we know that the sun in the sky and the sun in the mirror are one, and the appearance of the two suns can in no way refute the singleness of the heavenly sun. The sun of the heavens is considered the Divine Essence, but we cannot say this of the sun of the mirror. So then, we can say, the Divine Manifestation is God, but not in His Essence. The light is the same, but the Mirror is not the Sun.
The Sun we see in the mirror is a perfect reflection of the attributes of the Heavenly Sun. If we had a giant mirror so placed as to reflect the sunlight directly into a room, we could flood it with sunshine so perfectly that those inside would experience every sensation or attribute of the sun, as perfectly as though they might be outside. The light would be just as blinding, and the radiation just as definite. However those in the room would be receiving those sensations through an intermediary, the mirror, and not directly from the Sun.
This illustration might be carried even farther, by giving the mirror a name. Suppose it were named Moses, to demonstrate the relationship between God and the Jews. And then suppose other mirrors were brought forth which might be named Christ, Muhammad, and Bahá’u’lláh. Now each of these four mirrors would reflect the same light, yet none of them would be the sun. In this manner all of the Manifestations of God have the same relationship to God, and in this sense they are one, yet each have His own individual identity.
IT would be interesting at
this point to study each of the Manifestations
of God in order to demonstrate
how marvelously each is endowed
with God’s attributes. However,
this is a large subject which
could not be covered properly in a
few moments. Nevertheless, regardless
of how well we know the life and
teachings of Moses, of Jesus, of
Muhammad, of the Báb or of Bahá’u’lláh,
we are at least familiar enough
with them to realize that when we
think of God’s attributes, such as
knowledge, power, dominion, etc.,
[Page 12]
we can visualize them practically all
reflected in Their lives. Should some
certain quality not visibly appear in
any one of these Divine Beings, it
would not necessarily mean that He
did not possess that quality; for in
“The Kitab-i-Iqan” (page 104),
Bahá’u’lláh states that all of these
brilliant Beings are endowed with all
the attributes of God though all may
not appear outwardly. We can readily
realize how reasonable this statement
is, for in our daily lives we continually
discover in even our most
intimate friends qualities that they
possess which outwardly are not apparent.
For instance, a man may
have amazing strength, but due to his
occupation or mode of living, he is
never called upon to display it, and
the world may not recognize that such
a quality existed in him. And so we
could not truthfully say that a Prophet
of God did not possess a certain
attribute of God just because that attribute
was not outwardly visible to
the world.
The thought might come to us at this point, as to whether or not the teachings of Christ, or of Muhammad, show evidences of the relationship which Bahá’u’lláh states exists between God and His Manifestations, such as we have already discussed.
First turning to the Bible, we find in the Gospel of St. John countless references to the relationship of Jesus to God, some of which we will quote. In the 1st Chapter, 18th Verse, we have the following words of John, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” This verse was quoted before to show the relation of God to His creatures, but it also indicates that the knowledge of God is possible only through His Manifestations.
Then in the 5th Chapter, where we find the Jews desiring to kill Jesus because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but had said that God was His Father, apparently making Himself equal with God, we have the reply of Jesus, as follows, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” “That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” In the light of the explanations which Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá have given us, these words of Jesus become easier for us to understand. If the Jews had understood His explanation they would have known that Jesus only claimed equality with God in the sense that he reflected His attributes. He made no mention of His Essence, but did state that He could do nothing of himself; only that which he saw His Father do.
And then in the 14th Chapter after
Jesus foretold that Judas would betray
Him and it became necessary for
Him to comfort His disciples, we remember
Philip coming to Him, saying
“Lord, shew us the Father and
it sufficeth us,” and then beginning
with the eighth verse we have Jesus’
reply, “Have I been so long with you,
[Page 13]
and yet hast thou not known me,
Philip? He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father; and how sayest thou
then, Shew us the Father? Believest
thou not that I am in the Father, and
the Father in me? the words that I
speak unto you I speak not of myself;
but the Father that dwelleth in me,
he doeth the works. Believe me that
I am in the Father and the Father in
me: or else believe me for the very
works’ sake.” The relationship of
“the Father in Me” is one which Jesus
mentioned many times, and is one
that many have attempted to explain.
In fact Jesus used it so often that a
person could not honestly feel that
he understood the true relationship
of Christ to God, unless he also understood
the relationship signified in
“The Father in Me.” We could hardly
be expected to understand this
from a literal standpoint, because
such an interpretation would be contrary
to science and reason. We are
therefore warranted in understanding
this from a symbolic and allegorical
standpoint. Christ often spoke in
parables and it is an interesting fact
that when He told His disciples a
parable He never advised them that
what He was telling them was a
parable, but He always spoke as if it
were an actual occurrence. Since we
do interpret His parables as allegories
it stands that we can also consider
the “Father in Me” as allegorical and
symbolical, particularly so because a
literal interpretation of this statement
is beyond reason. And so ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
in explaining this statement
of “the Father in Me” in Paris
in 1913, spoke as follows (page
152), “Divine Philosophy,” “The
fatherhood and sonship are allegorical
and symbolical. The Messianic
reality is like unto a mirror through
which the sun of divinity has become
resplendent. If this mirror expresses,
“The light is in me”—it is sincere in
its claim; therefore Jesus was truthful
when he said, “The Father is in
Me.” The sun in the sky and the sun
in the mirror are one, are they not,—
and yet we see there are apparently
two suns.”
And then as we leave the Bible and take up Muhammad and the Qur’án, we have first from Sura 42, 50th Verse—“It is not for man that God should speak with him but by vision or behind a veil or he sendeth a Messenger to reveal by His permission what He will.” This confirms the truth, that the knowledge of God is possible only through His Manifestations, or Messengers, as was stated in this verse. In “The Kitab-i-Iqan” (page 100), Bahá’u’lláh quotes the following verse from the Qur’án: “There is no distinction whatsoever between Thee and Them; except that they are Thy servants, and are created of Thee.” Again in “The Gleanings” (page 66), Bahá’u’lláh quotes from the Qur’án, as follows: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” These holy words of Muhammad require no explanation. They merely indicate to us, that the teachings of Muhammad are identical with those of Christ and Bahá’u’lláh, with regard to the relationship of the Manifestation to God.
And now let us consider the second
[Page 14]
relationship of the Manifestation:
that of His relationship to man.
It was pointed out that since man cannot comprehend the Infinite, it must necessarily follow that the Manifestation of God must have human aspects. Were this not so, man could no more comprehend Him than he could the Supreme Essence, and those that have considered the Manifestation exclusively as God, and denied his human aspects, have perhaps unconsciously, but nevertheless in fact, denied the Infinity of God Himself. We have quoted Bahá’u’lláh from “The Kitab-i-Iqan” where He states that God “caused luminous Gems of Holiness to appear from the worlds of spirit in noble human temples, among His creatures.” From this we understand that God created His Manifestations in human form; that they each took on a physical body and a rational soul, and to each of which was assigned a different Name.
It should not be necessary to attempt to prove this point for history tells us how the people of the time of a Manifestation have invariably recognized Him merely as one of their own fellow-men, and dealt with Him as such. They certainly could not have mistaken His knowledge, His mercy, His wisdom, His generosity, or His beneficence; as a matter of fact His enemies have even acknowledged that these qualities existed in Him whom they were so mercilessly persecuting. The persecutions the Manifestations endured were due entirely to the materialism of the people among whom They lived, who were thus permitted to see only the Manifestation’s physical conditions, and were blinded from recognizing the significance of Their more important Spiritual aspects, which elevated Them to the true station of a Manifestation of God.
Entering this world as an infant, the Manifestation is administered to as any other child. His body develops gradually and is built up of elements just as man’s body has been developed. Composed of elements it is therefore also subject to decomposition. The Manifestation has human limitations similar to man in that He is subject to illness, endures pain, is dependent on food and drink, needs sleep and rest, and has either material means or is without them. And yet while the Manifestations have the same physical conditions as mankind, it is evident that these physical powers are often higher developed. For instance man has ever been amazed at the suffering these Holy Beings were obliged to endure. They have marveled at their remarkable endurance, their phenomenal recuperative powers. In the specific case of Bahá’u’lláh an account published in the “Star of the West” (Vol. VIII, page 178), tells of the extraordinary condition of Bahá’u’lláh during the last three years of His life, a period during which He ate practically nothing. Once when He was not feeling well a Greek physician examined His pulse and expressed his astonishment, stating that he had never seen a constitution so sensitive as that of Bahá’u’lláh.
The Manifestation also has a rational
soul, or individual reality such
as man; however they are not exactly
alike; the difference explained by
[Page 15]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá in “Some Answered
Questions” (page 177), being as
follows:—“But the individual reality
of the Manifestations of God is a holy
reality, and for that reason it is sanctified,
and in that which concerns its
nature and quality, is distinguished
from all other things. It is like the
sun, which by its essential nature produces
light, and cannot be compared
to the moon, just as the particles that
compose the globe of the sun cannot
be compared with those which compose
the moon. The particles and
organization of the former produce
rays, but the particles of which the
moon is composed do not produce
rays, but need to borrow light. So
other human realities are those souls
who, like the moon, take light from
the sun; but that holy reality is luminous
in himself.”
SO then the Manifestation is similar to man in that He has a similar physical body, but higher developed, and then like man, He has a rational soul, with the exception that His reality being holy is luminous, whereas man is dependent on his light from the Manifestation.
Wherein the Manifestation differs essentially from Man is that of His Divine Identity, and which is known as the Divine Bounty. Obviously this is a station which cannot be shared by man, because it is of an environment beyond the realm of man. This station is described in “Some Answered Questions” (page 174), as the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, or the Reality of Prophethood. Being of the Divine World, it has neither beginning nor end. This station represents the radiance of the light of the Supreme Essence or the radiance of the light of the Sun from a perfect mirror, and is the station which Christ referred to when He spoke of “The Father in Me.” It is through this station that the Manifestation displays His Divine attributes; whereby He becomes a Creator of Spiritual Life. By His innate knowledge, He becomes both a Divine Educator and a Divine Physician; an Establisher of a New Social Order.
This Reality of Prophethood
wherein the Manifestation differs so
essentially from man, as was stated,
is of the Divine World, and has
neither beginning not end, hence it
does not come into being with the
declaration of prophethood by the
Manifestation, nor does it cease with
the death of His physical body. We
have the words of St. John: “In the
beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God. The same was
in the beginning with God,” from
which we deduce that the station of
Messiaship was always with Christ
and existed prior to His baptism, or
even to His physical birth. Likewise
the Divine Identity of Bahá’u’lláh did
not suddenly appear in His physical
body while He was sleeping upon His
couch, as a literal interpretation of
His Tablet to the Shah of Persia
would have us believe. This is explained
on page 98 of “Some Answered
Questions” in the following
words: “Briefly, the Holy Manifestations
have ever been, and ever will be,
Luminous Realities; no change or
variation takes place in their essence.
Before declaring their manifestation,
they are silent and quiet like a sleeper,
[Page 16]
and after their manifestation, they
speak and are illuminated, like one
who is awake.”
And as we study the utterance of the Manifestations, we learn that just as they have a dual relationship, They likewise have a dual form of utterance. There are times when They speak as a man, usually in a spirit of humility, such as the words of Jesus: “Nevertheless not my will, but Thine be done” or the words of Muhammad: “Say praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man an apostle,” or “I am but a man like you.” In this connection there is also Bahá’u’lláh’s epistle to the Shah of Persia, previously referred to. This Tablet is too lengthy to quote, however it clearly indicates Bahá’u’lláh speaking as a man, and in addition indicating that the station of Manifestation He had assumed was not of His own will. In His Tablet of Ishráqát He expressed a similar thought by saying, “Had another exponent or speaker been found we would not have made ourself an object of censure, derision and calumnies on the part of the people.” Jesus spoke in like manner when He said, “Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from Me.”
THERE are other times when the Manifestation speaks directly from the standpoint of the Deity. In this class of utterance His human personality is completely subservient, and we then have the Voice of God speaking direct to man, through Him. Dr. J. E. Esslemont, in “Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era” (page 53), states that through the Manifestation “God addresses His creatures, proclaiming His love for them, teaching them His attributes, making known His will, announcing His laws for their guidance and pleading for their love, their allegiance and service.” And continuing, Dr. Esslemont writes as follows: “In the writings of Bahá’u’lláh, the utterance frequently changes from one of these forms to another. Sometimes it is evidently the Man who is discoursing, then without a break the writing continues as if God were speaking in the first person. Even when speaking as a man, however, Bahá’u’lláh speaks as God’s messenger, as a living example of entire devotion to God’s will. His whole life is actuated by the Holy Spirit. Hence no hard and fast line can be drawn between the human and divine elements in His life or teachings.” “Say: ‘Naught is seen in my temple but the Temple of God, and in my beauty, but His Beauty, and in my being, but His Being, and in myself but Himself, and in my movement but His Movement, and in my acquiescence but His Acquiescence, and in my Pen but His Pen, the Precious, the Extolled’!” “Say: ‘There hath not been in my soul but the Truth, and in myself naught could be seen but God’.”
YOUTH HAS NEW DOCTRINES
HELEN HARDY
IN Berlin the streets are filled with boys singing and marching to the songs of their dictator. In China the streets are crowded with grim-faced young men and women but there are no songs, no sounds—the very quietness is in itself oppressive; but they too are marching. In Italy an old peasant woman unclasps her gold necklace, and with only patriotism in her heart, drops it cheerfully into the great melting pot for the dictator. Gold for shells, for bombs, for airplanes, for poisonous gases and for tanks. In the nearby streets boys of but eight proudly display their black shirts as they move forward in their parade, carrying toy guns over their shoulders.
In Czechoslovakia, in Cairo, even in Jerusalem where the Jew says “On to Trans-Jordan. Certainly the River was not our ancient frontier” and the Arab replies “Come and die.” In Japan, Manilla, Moscow,—everywhere —the youth of today marches. Where are they marching? What are they planning? What are they thinking? What will happen when they eventually meet?
In our great country youth marches also, but our banners are different. Here youth marches for peace. Signs proclaim, “I do not intend to raise my son to be a soldier.” “We are the Gold Star Mothers of the future.” “Join now, Cell-Mates of Future Wars.” “We are the veterans of future wars; give us our bonus now while we are alive to enjoy it.” What is to be the outcome of this? What can we have? Above all, what can we do?
Nationalism is a rising tide everywhere, but it is a Hyper-Nationalism that wants all and takes all.
Outside of the great Powers that own large portions of the earth, such as the United States, England, Russia, and France, the feeling is a great need of expansion. There is no longer any unoccupied land in which to expand. There is but one obvious answer to this, and the youths of the rising generation think no further. They are blind to the future. They do not consider the horror and destruction of war. They feel only the greatest of patriotism. One and all say, “A man may assume his own responsibility for his life, but he must not deliberately surrender his soul, for he has his self-respect to keep.”
In England, also, there is great
patriotism. She wants peace, but also
wishes no one to intrude upon her
holdings in different sections of the
globe. She lost no time when she
[Page 18]
thought Egypt and Suez were endangered
but sent her fleet to aid her
possessions. In Germany, in Italy, in
every country, people say they want
peace, they pray for peace, but they
feel that peace cannot be had when
their population is constantly growing
and they have no place to put
their ever-increasing overflow.
PERHAPS the comparison of war and peace was best expressed over 2000 years ago by Herodotus who was the first of all war correspondents. He cited to Croesus, King of Lydia, the words that Croesus spoke to Cyrus, of Persia, “No man is so foolish to desire war more than peace, for, in peace sons bury their fathers but in war, fathers bury their sons.”
Twenty years ago the cry was, “Make the world safe for democracy.” We will not deny that it was good publicity; the last great conflict poured thousands of dollars into the hands of the profiteers; for a short while everyone seemed rich and prosperous, and yet, there were the poor victims who had lost everything.
It is the younger generation, who in time of war, is called upon to be the targets of machine guns and victims of the latest poisonous gas. It is the youths of our age who will be forced to destroy human culture for causes which future historians will decree wrong. Yet it is the elderly politician, the financier, who is not harmed by the war, that pushes our country onto the battlefield for his own benefit. . . .
The young people of today in this country do not want war. This has been proved in the mass meetings of protest; in the polls conducted by prominent magazines and newspapers. The general answer is the same, “We will fight if our country is invaded but we will go to any ends to prevent war. Let other countries fight their own battles.” Does this sound heartless, cowardly, unpatriotic to you people of the older generation? The reply is simple enough. Not so many centuries ago war consisted of duels between armored knights. Yes, perhaps there was something thrilling, something chivalrous in that. Then it was man against man, equal power against equal power. We can see the glory, the honor, in that. But where is the man who can see glory in a battle where men lay in deep wet trenches, sometimes aiming at an unseen enemy, sending poisonous gases, bombing helpless villages. In this kind of warfare, bullets do not discriminate —old men, women, children—all are mowed down. The young people of today realize these things. Distance gives perspective. The gold has been proved to be nothing but gilt. More extensive education has enabled people to think more clearly and since we realize the truth of matters, there is no question as to what should be done. Do not sit around hoping for peace, but get out and do something about it. Work for it! Live for it! Teach it! Become leaders! Dictate your wishes!
In Germany and other countries
(more than any other factor) it is
the personality of the leader that
counts. Often the followers know
not what it is all about. . . . Statesmen,
[Page 19]
writers, speakers, all appeal to
human emotions. It was propaganda
that prepared the world for the last
great war. Let us prevent it from
preparing the world for another. A
distinguished publicist said recently
that in the United States we need to
recognize the principles of cooperation
and profit-sharing used successfully
in Sweden, England, and Scotland.
In our country there is the beginning
of a movement which envisions
America’s future in terms of
the restoration of private ownership
through a more intelligent cooperative
program. This movement is
within the American system of democracy
and it is perhaps the best way
to peace.
MANY still believe in the doctrine, “In time of peace prepare for war,” but the attitude of the younger people is that we can prevent war, not by preparing for it through our army and navy, but preparing for it through our industries.
Some have predicted that a world conflict cannot be postponed later than 1938; others predict a later year. So it is the duty of the youth of today, to work for our country, to be inspired with patriotism and show it. Surely it can be used to better advantage than dying in a fever of patriotic hysteria. Young people are needed to work for their country. Is it so wonderful to be a dead hero? Unfortunately no one can tell us that. The young people are not degenerating. They have new doctrines for which to work. Youth moves onward to victory—in peace!
Excerpts from the Valedictory address delivered at Eliot High School, Eliot, Maine, in June, 1936.
THE UNITY OF NATIONS
STANWOOD COBB
SEVEN CANDLES OF UNITY
A SYMPOSIUM. VII
“HUMAN history sometimes drifts aimlessly along without seeming to go anywhere, then at other times it rides fast on a flowing tide that cannot be stopped or turned aside,” says David Coyle in his book “Uncommon Sense.”
We are in such a swift moving period today. It is indeed a crucial moment in the world’s history. Vast changes have already taken place. Still greater changes are imminent. Where is all this leading to?
Minds are made confused by all this change. Hearts are made anxious. For this process of human evolution, if we can call it such, has its immediate implications for every individual. The sense of certainty, of security, is destroyed by this ominous and bewildering destruction of old forms and institutions going on before our eyes. Every such destruction suggests the danger of drastic changes in personal fortunes. What lies ahead for us as individuals we know not. What lies ahead of us in the way of group forms and fortunes we can only guess.
If we could be but certain that this breaking up of old forms were leading to something vastly superior; if we could rest in the assurance of a stable and universal order developing for future humanity out of all this welter and chaos of the workshop period of today, we could afford to accept not only with equanimity but even with satisfaction the present conditions out of which such a world order would seem to be developing.
In the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh given to the world over seventy years ago may be found the clue to these vast changes that are taking place. Old forms had to be broken up, in order that the glorious structure of the new World Order might arise out of the ruins of the godless and semi-pagan civilization of today.
This new World Order of Bahá’u’lláh
implies universal peace; the
brotherhood of man; the unity of religion;
the establishment of an equitable,
stable and prosperous economic
system of worldwide proportions;
the setting up of an auxiliary universal
language as an instrument for
world travel, world commerce, and
culture; the formation everywhere of
just governments assuring economic
security to the individual, restraining
[Page 21]
the great oppressors, and guaranteeing
in actuality and not in words a
square deal to even the humblest person
in his pursuit of life, liberty and
happiness.
It may seem paradoxical to state that this glorious vision for humanity cannot be achieved save through the creation of chaos in human affairs.
But how would war ever cease, save that the instruments of war became so terrible and devastating, so wholesale in destruction as to purge the heart and purify the soul of men to that point at which actual plans for universal peace could be effected? How could the brotherhood of man come about until humanity wearied of the cruelties and confusions due to racial and national hatreds? How could one supreme and vitally active world religion be achieved, until peoples the world over despaired of the efficacy of their old traditional cults? How could the perfect economic pattern be forged out, until capital and labor, through battling one against the other, through the attrition and loss and chaos of economic warfare and class struggle, reach a point where each side is willing to relinquish somewhat of power in order to find in harmonization and mutualization of their desires and needs the fair and shining way to equitable, stable and universal prosperity? And how could governments become just, until the oppressed should rise up with such might as to pull down the proud oppressor from his power?
We shall not grieve over the chaotic conditions today, we shall not even be bewildered at these swift changes everywhere occurring, if we hold steadily before our eyes the glorious vision of the new World Order as revealed by Bahá’u’lláh. Here is a definite pattern for human society. An all-inclusive pattern for the expression of man’s power and abilities in the social, economic and political domains. Holding this pattern before our eyes we can work toward it gradually as the architect turns into noble reality the blue prints which lie upon his desk.
Instead of confusion we shall then have certitude. Instead of despair we shall have courage and glorious hopes. The more we see the old forms tumble to ruin before our eyes, the more we shall rejoice in the opportunity thus given to us for building new and better forms in their place.
Institutions are not immortal. They rise and fall in periodic rhythm —expressive of the growing power of man’s ever inventive spirit, and obedient to the dictates of destiny. Why mourn the failure of old institutions in which crystallization has become an omen and a cause of death? Let us rather hail with joy the rise of glorious new institutions which promise immense benefits to humanity.
I
Let us now view in detail the structure of the new World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, announced by Him to the world as the Will of the Eternal Mover of cosmic events. Let us view it, as the architect helps us to conceive his plans, in the form of the perfected structure pictured concretely.
We are in the year 2001. We look
back upon the twentieth century as a
period of enormous vitality, of stupendous
[Page 22]
structural changes. Out of the
apparent chaos and confusion we
have seen emerge great and universal
institutions founded upon the predication
of the Oneness of Mankind,
secured and stabilized by a new human
conscience of universal brotherhood.
War has disappeared now and forever. In its place we see the promised and long-dreamed-of Federation of the World; the League of Nations, so feebly struggling in its early days, having now become a universal and effective institution for super-national government. The rulers and peoples of the world, wearying of the devastations caused by war, have at last actually agreed, in world conference, to simultaneously cut down national armaments to that minimum essential for internal order. In the place of these fatally competitive armies and navies an international police corps has been created, naval and aeronautic, obedient to the will of the League of Nations Assembly and upholding the decisions of the World Court. Swiftly effective is this great international armed force in keeping all the peoples of the world subservient to the demands of international law and order.
A world metropolis acts as a nerve center of a world civilization, the focus toward which the unifying forces of life will converge and from which its energizing influences will radiate. The economic resources of the world are organized and an equitable distribution assured by the world parliament and international executive. The technological power of humanity is fully applied to the exploitations of the earth’s physical resources. World markets are coordinated and developed and the distribution of world products are equitably regulated. Thus the major causes of modern war have been removed, since the new international government of this Federation of the World so regulates world economy as to produce greater prosperity for each individual nation, as parts now of a harmonious whole, than have ever been achieved in the past by means of the selfish and brutal self-seeking of nations through the instrumentality of war and conquest.
THE ancient ancestral quarrel between labor and capital has been healed and all their joint problems solved by the far-reaching economic laws of Bahá’u’lláh. What are these laws? The first is that of profit-sharing, that the net profits of industry and business are divided between capital and labor. That is to say, labor in addition to a basic minimum wage, has a definite predetermined share in the profits. Thus there has been achieved a perfect mutualization of capital and labor. New potentialities in labor have been awakened and tapped, potentialities of energy and of inventiveness. The productive power of industry under this new arrangement has been greatly multiplied, and the consuming power of the general public has been enabled to keep up with this heightened power of production.
II
Yes, through the application of a
very simple economic principle, the
age of abundance dreamed of by the
[Page 23]
young economists of the 1930’s has
actually been achieved. Whereas before,
in the confused economic period
of the twentieth century, too much
of the proceeds of industry flowed to
capital to become investment money
and too little to labor in the way of
becoming consuming power; now the
law of profit-sharing, elastically applied,
has helped to maintain consumption
on a parity with production.
A second great law, that of
graduated income and inheritance
taxes, so steep in the upper registers
as to prevent excessive fortunes, further
serves to divert income from investment
to consumptive channels.
This new economic regime, adapted
by the respective nations to their internal
needs and aided by the international
government, maintains an
equitable and permanent parity between
production and consumption.
This same parity is maintained in the agricultural domain. For the first time in world history it has been found possible to obtain markets for all food products grown. The immense agricultural potentiality of the earth’s surface is now exploited with all the skill and technological planning of a human society that has at last reached maturity.
The world’s agriculture is now practiced on a universal basis. The great staple crops of the world are kept flowing from high levels of productiveness to areas low in productiveness but high in consuming power. Agricultural engineering and planning of world-wide scope supersedes waste and chaos. Backward people are assisted by technological leaders lent to them from other countries to train them in scientific methods of agriculture.
Now all the world is fed, clothed and housed with a fair degree of comfort. No one on the surface of the planet goes to bed hungry—not even the humblest individual of the most backward country of the world. Such is the far-flung efficiency of the great super-government of the World-State.
The vast industrial potentiality of humanity, now stimulated by a stable and universal consuming power, turns out necessity and comfort goods in such quantities and at such cheapness as to enrich the humblest home with ample means of comfortable living. Yet our industrial and technical engineers tell us this is only the beginning. For they aim to improve industrial methods by their technology and at the same time work out efficacious ways and means for increasing the consuming power of the public, so as to bring not only the necessary comfort goods to every home, but also a constantly increasing range of pleasure and luxury goods. For humanity, having begun to satisfy its necessary wants, is rapidly developing new wants of an esthetic nature. The home of the humblest workman has a beauty of architecture and interior decoration possible only to the wealthy in that period of confusion which prevailed in the early part of the twentieth century.
A vast energy is being directed into
civic betterment and into the
beautification of village, town and
city. Parks, schools, civic centers, recreational
centers, public libraries,
museums, institutions for adult education
[Page 24]
—all of these are stimulating
the masses and raising them to ever
new cultural levels.
The love of beauty has grown universal. The simplest articles of daily use have beauty of design and color. The radio, the moving pictures, the symphony orchestras spread everywhere within reach of every community, are developing esthetic tastes and opening up opportunities for new artistic talent and achievement.
For the world order of Bahá’u’lláh is not a mere proposition of counting-house and mart. It is dedicated not only to order and prosperity, but to beauty and to joy of living.
THE World Federation of Bahá’u’lláh is united by a universal auxiliary language which was selected by the rulers of all the nations meeting in Congress and thereafter prescribed in all the schools of the world. This does not displace the native language but is auxiliary to it. The international language has become a most essential implement for international commerce, travel and culture. Important books appear simultaneously in the native and in the universal language. International conventions and conferences are held in this new language. Its use also helps in developing the psychology of brotherhood. The importance of linguistic unity in the development of a cohesive nationalism had long been recognized by the leading nations of the world; the same psychological implement is now applied to the forging out of a cohesive internationalism.
A Universal education spreads its blessings throughout the world. The school curriculums in the various nations of the world are fast approximating a common educational aim and ideology. This educational homogeneity is in itself a powerful aid toward world unity of thought and feeling. Through the aid of the universal language scholars can now travel from country to country and attend universities anywhere in the world.
A new world culture is fast developing as the final majestic flowering of that culture called Renaissance which saw the first faint beginning of a harmonization of Oriental and Occidental culture-modes. We had seen this cultural unification of Orient and Occident developing with considerable acceleration during the last half of the nineteenth, and throughout the twentieth century. The coalescence has now become practically completed. The treasuries of Oriental culture have been joined with the best and richest values the Occident has to offer, producing a universal culture of remarkable virility, charm and progress-mindedness—a culture in which the esthetic quality of the East is mated to the technological prowess of the West.
This final and complete coalescence of cultures has come about through the emotional unity caused by the spread of the Bahá’í Faith throughout the world, and the development of a unified conscience of brotherhood, now firmly uniting every nation and people on the planet.
THE important factor in the
world unity now being achieved is the
[Page 25]
establishment of a universal religion
in accordance with the teachings of
Bahá’u’lláh. The various races of the
world have come to see that life
spiritually is one; that as there is but
one universe, so there is but one God
and one Truth. The religious ideology
and practice of the planet have
for the first time in its history been
brought into an effective unity
through acceptance of the Revelation
of the new World Order of Bahá’u’lláh.
This new and miraculous spiritual unity of the human race is the most important single factor in the creation of an effective working unity of thought and action among the two billion people that inhabit the globe.
The apex and keystone of this world structure is the institution of Guardianship established by Bahá’u’lláh as the focal point around which the world’s thought and action revolve, creating a functional unity unassailable by the dispersive quality.
This same spiritual force of divine guidance and protection permeates to greater or lesser degree the functioning of the various legislative and administrative bodies—local, national and international. In fact, a new type of government has sprung into being, combining the important elements of democracy, aristocracy, autocracy, and theocracy. It would not be possible here to describe fully the plans and working out of this Bahá’í type of civilization which avoids the weaknesses and inefficiencies of democracy, and brings to bear upon its various functions the abilities of the most gifted and devoted citizens. Permeating universally the ordering and functioning of this new government is the practice of collective turning to the Divine Ruler of the universe for guidance in the solution of all difficult legislative and administrative problems.
THIS titanic enterprise—the creation in actuality of the world vision of Bahá’u’lláh—is now, in this beginning of the third millenium of the Christian era, well on its foundational way toward success. But it will take centuries to complete the structure in all its perfection. What had appeared an impossible dream in the age of confusion of the first half of the twentieth century, has proceeded to its marvelous consummation with constantly accelerated and miraculous speed during the second half of that century.
The Kingdom of God, pre-existing architecturally in the Realm of Causation —that Archetypal World of which Plato knew—has at last descended to earth and evolved its perfect pattern in this fair and noble structure, the new World Order of Bahá’u’lláh.
Thus the blueprints of God have become the New Jerusalem visioned by the apocalyptical seer of Patmos. The world brotherhood of Christ has been achieved.
WORLD ORDER AND PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY
MARY COLLISON
THE WORLD ORDER OF BAHÁ’U’LLÁH
III
“SOON,” Bahá’u’lláh proclaimed, “will the present day Order be rolled up and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth and is the Knower of things unseen.”
What a foolish statement this would, some fifty years ago, have seemed to the confident, boastful admirers of our rapidly developing, prosperous, scientific civilization. Yet it was no slip of the tongue, so to speak. Again and again Bahá’u’lláh referred to a basic change in the social order and associated it with two other ideas even more unbelievable to the nineteenth century materialist: first, that the impending chaos which would mark the transition was because the existing order was “lamentably defective” and second, that the new order was in some mysterious way the result of His teachings—the impractical ideas of an almost unknown philosopher in a backward Oriental country.
When ‘Abdul-Bahá repeated the warning in 1912, it did not seem quite so ridiculous, especially during and following the European War.
In 1931 Shoghi Effendi wrote: “Never have there been such widespread and basic upheavals, whether in the social, economic or political spheres of human activity as those now going on in different parts of the world. Never have there been so many and varied sources of danger as those that now threaten the structure of society.”[1] Almost every well-informed person agreed with him.
In 1936 he writes: “Beset on
every side by the cumulative evidences
of disintegration, of turmoil and of
bankruptcy, serious-minded men and
women, in almost every walk of life,
are beginning to doubt whether society,
as it is now organized, can,
through its own unaided efforts, extricate
itself from the slough into
which it is steadily sinking. Every
system, short of the unification of the
human race, has been tried and been
found wanting. . . . Sore-tried and disillusioned,
humanity has no doubt
lost its orientation and would seem
to have lost as well its faith and hope.
It is hovering, unshepherded and visionless,
on the brink of disaster. . . .
We stand on the threshold of an age
whose convulsions proclaim alike the
[Page 27]
death-pangs of the old order and the
birth-pangs of the new.”[2] It is surprising
how many non-Bahá’ís hold
the same belief.
Nowhere do we find such a penetrating analysis of present-day society as in Shoghi Effendi’s World Order letters. But the most unusual characteristic of his analysis is that he sees two forces at work; one destructive, the other constructive; one destroying the old order, the other giving birth to the new order. Note these quotations from “The Unfoldment of World Civilization.”
“The contrast between the accumulating evidences of steady consolidation that accompany the rise of the Administrative Order of the Faith of God, and the forces of disintegration which batter at the fabric of a travailing society, is as clear as it is arresting.”[3]
"Who else can be the blissful if not the community of the Most Great Name, whose world-embracing, continually consolidating activities constitute the one integrating process in a world whose institutions, secular as well as religious, are for the most part dissolving? . . . Of all the kindreds of the earth they alone can recognize, amidst the welter of a tempestuous age, the Hand of the Divine Redeemer that traces its course and controls its destinies. They alone are aware of the silent growth of that orderly world polity whose fabric they themselves are weaving.”[4]
Not only is Shoghi Effendi trying to give us an intellectual understanding of the separateness of these two fundamentally different social orders, but he is training us to recognize the distinction in our individual social relationships. The religious, social, economic and political institutions of the old order are rapidly disintegrating yet we stubbornly cling to them rather than give undivided allegiance to the world order of Bahá’u’lláh. Gradually one by one he is trying to loosen our hold on the old supports and drag us clear of the danger of a collapsing structure.
FIRST be freed us from the divisive influence of party politics which are incompatible with the Bahá’í concept of world citizenship. Five years earlier Shoghi Effendi had pointed out that although our major task was the formation and consolidation of the administrative institutions and the preservation of the identity and purity of the Cause the Bahá’ís should collaborate “with any association of men which, after careful scrutiny, they feel satisfied is free from every tinge of partisanship and politics and is wholly devoted to the interests of all mankind.” Yet it was a shock to most of us when we were asked to give up our partisan political affiliations.
Later the same principle was applied to affiliation with an interreligious movement and similar organizations neither political nor sectarian.
Two years later his secretary wrote:
“Concerning membership in non-Bahá’í
religious associations, the
Guardian wishes to re-emphasize the
general principle already laid down.
. . . that no Bahá’í who wishes to be
a whole-hearted and sincere upholder
of the distinguishing principles of the
[Page 28]
Cause can accept full membership in
any non-Bahá’í ecclesiastical organization.
For such an act would necessarily
imply only a partial acceptance
of the Teachings and laws of the
Faith, and an incomplete recognition
of its independent status, . . . For it
is only too oblivious that in most of
its fundamental assumptions the
Cause of Bahá’u’lláh is completely
at variance with outworn creeds,
ceremonies and institutions. To be a
Bahá’í and at the same time accept
membership in another religious body
is simply an act of contradiction that
no sincere and logically minded person
can possibly accept.”[5]
This instruction in no way affects our recognition of the divine station and mission of Christ. “Though our Cause unreservedly recognizes the Divine origin of all the religions that preceded it and upholds the spiritual truths which lie at their very core and are common to them all, its institutions . . . must be increasingly divorced from the outworn creeds, the meaningless ceremonials and manmade institutions with which these religions are at present identified.”[6]
Neither does it interfere with those believers who find inspiration in their church associations for Shoghi Effendi says: “There should be no confusion between the terms affiliation and association. While affiliation with ecclesiastical organizations is not permissible, association with them should not only be tolerated but even encouraged. There is no better way to demonstrate the universality of the Cause than this. Bahá’u’lláh, indeed, urges His followers to consort with all religions and nations with utmost friendliness and love. This constitutes the very spirit of His message to mankind.”[7]
SHOGHI EFFENDI beautifully summarizes our relationship to present-day society when he writes in “The Unfoldment of World Civilization”; “Though loyal to their respective governments, though profoundly interested in anything that affects their security and welfare, though anxious to share in whatever promotes their best interests, . . . they conceive their Faith to be essentially non-political, supra-national in character, rigidly non-partisan, and entirely dissociated from nationalistic ambitions, pursuits, and purposes. Such a Faith knows no division of class or party. It subordinates every particularistic interest, be it personal, regional, or national, to the paramount interests of humanity, firmly convinced that in a world of inter-dependent peoples and nations the advantage of the part is best to be reached by the advantage of the whole, and that no abiding benefit can be conferred upon the component parts if the general interests of the entity itself are ignored or neglected.
“Conscious of their high calling, confident in the society-building power which their Faith possesses, they press forward, undeterred and undismayed, in their efforts to fashion and perfect the necessary instruments wherein the embryonic World Order of Bahá’u’lláh can mature and develop. It is this building process, slow and unobtrusive, to which the life of the world-wide Bahá’í Community is wholly consecrated, that constitutes the one hope of a stricken society.”[8]
A STUDY OF CHURCH ORGANIZATION
G. A. SHOOK
II. ORIGIN OF ADMINISTRATION
EVERY critical period in Christianity has caused the church to return to the Primitive Church and to re-examine the writings of the early Church fathers. The most authentic information accessible today, therefore, comes to us through the work of these scholars who with extreme care and patience study the early writings. Divergence of opinion is inevitable for no scholar can be entirely unbiased, even under normal conditions, and in a crisis extreme positions are only natural.
To illustrate, one branch of the Church has always stood for unity, a unity which it believes it has as a divine right. Naturally it will stress Succession and Episcopal authority. Another branch desires greater freedom, more inspiration and less ecclesiasticism, if necessary at the expense of unity. This branch will touch lightly the question of Succession, the hereditary principle or divine sanction in general, but will stress the rights of the individual in the matter of divine guidance, and the sovereignty of the community in the matter of administration.
From the standpoint of organization, the history of the first centuries is manifestly more important than any subsequent period. While the Reformation exhibited a general awakening, it also marked the beginning of the greatest divergence the Church had ever witnessed. The singular success of Protestantism led many to believe that post-reformation organization had attained an ideal superior to anything it had reached in the past and that moreover all future religious organizations must necessarily be based upon this diversified and flexible system.
There are three views concerning the origin and development of the church administration (organization and ministry).
1. Lightfoot maintained, “That in the early days of Christianity the most exalted office in the Church conveyed no sacerdotal right which was not enjoyed by the humblest member of the Christian community.”[1] There were no offices with exclusive rights (priestly rights). At first the term bishop was synonymous with presbyter (leader, priest, or minister) but later it designated the head of a board of presbyters.
2. Harnack maintained that in
this early church there always were
[Page 30]
two distinct orders, or two kinds of
ministry.
- a. There were apostles, prophets, and teachers, whose authority was derived from the Holy Spirit, and
- b. Presbyter-bishops and Deacons who were appointed by popular election.
The first were non-local—they were concerned primarily with spiritual oversight, while the second were confined to the local church which had elected them.
3. Streeter, on the other hand, believes that the development was more natural, more dynamic. At first it was governed largely by urgent local need and then by an increasing need for common standards during which an efficient uniform system was devised.
One thing seems fairly certain, the early church believed that there could be no valid church order without some kind of authority. The officers of the church had to have some kind of Divine commission. No one was at liberty to consider himself a self-constituted Apostle of Christ. All this was implied in the concept of a Christian Church, and until quite recently this view was held by the vast majority of Christians. That is, a group of any kind may assemble for worship in the name of Christ but in theory this does not constitute a Christian Church.
OF all the religious problems that have harassed man none has provoked more discussion or division than the problem of Divine Commission. The various opinions, however, fall into three groups.
First there is the extreme individualistic
position which maintains that
every follower of the prophet may obtain
divine guidance directly. To this
class a ministry different in kind from
the laity is superfluous. They do not
realize the advantage nor the necessity
of transmitting, through some
kind of succession, the divine will.
To them a church is merely a community
of believers. The spirit, and
not the form, is the important thing.
But it is not so simple as it appears.
To begin with does society develop its
own laws? or even improve upon
them? Where do we get our fundamental
social laws if not from the
great world leaders, the prophets?
and would it not be highly advantageous
to have a perpetual source of divine
guidance, superior to that of the
most highly developed believer? Are
the rulers of the world today adjusting
their institutions to the needs of
a rapidly evolving civilization? To
be sure, many believe that if we develop
the individual, society will take
care of itself; but this assumes that
there already exists some kind of law
for the governing of society. Today
it is not at all obvious that we have
laws for governing an expanding society.
The laws that apply to self-contained
nations do not seem to apply
to a commonwealth of nations.
But this is not all: from a purely spiritual
viewpoint the theory is not
sound. It is true that each individual
might get his own guidance but it is
also true that they will not necessarily
agree among themselves, some will
be purer channels than others. As
we shall see, in the days when all
[Page 31]
were free to speak and all could
claim to be inspired, there were also
fraudulent claimants who nearly disrupted
the primitive unity. Would
it not be reasonable for the highly
gifted to consider themselves the
logical leaders? Furthermore, if such
a society were very heterogeneous is
it probable that the leaders would
agree among themselves? Would it
not be plausible, under these conditions,
for the people to unite under
different leaders to provide for different
viewpoints? In the end we
would have not an organic unit but
a multiplicity of organizations.
The opposite view is ritualistic. This school maintains that there must be some kind of succession and some kind of ordination such as the laying on of hands. “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Tim. iv. 14). That is, there can be no commission in a Christian Church except from those who have received authority to commission. Up to the present time the only ones with such authority are the bishops of the church. It is not unreasonable to suppose, however, that in the future there may be other means of transmitting Divine Commission. We must remember that in Islam the Imamate was a perpetual source of divine inspiration for twelve generations.
The third position maintains that there is no class with authority; that is, the ministry is not different in kind from the laity. “What gives fitness for ordination is an adequate love for and knowledge of God, and a natural talent for making it known to others.”[2] This class admits the necessity of a ministry; that is, there should be a bishop or church officer to regulate the ordination, but the ordination does not signify that there is any transmitted authority of divine descent. In view of all the historical facts this position seems more logical than the second, but after all are we justified in investing a community with an authority that we have denied to church officials? In the matter of church order those writers who object to divinely delegated authority, transmitted by persons (or a person) with exclusive rights, do not hesitate to assume that divine guidance is possible through inner consciousness. In speaking of organization, Falconer says, “There is no elaborate system revealed by supernatural means with Divine sanction: . . . .”[3] and then he adds, “The orders of rule grew from below by a process of evolution, directed by the Holy Spirit.”[4]
CHRIST said practically nothing
about a visible church. In fact
the word “church” is used but twice
in the Gospels and He said nothing
explicit about church order nor administration.
He was concerned,
however, with a visible society or
community of believers for, like the
Hebrew Rabbi, He trained twelve of
His followers. “And He appointed
twelve, that they might be with Him,
and He might send them forth to
preach, and to have authority to cast
out devils.” (Mark iii. 14). Moreover
it is certain that the early church
believed some kind of succession was
necessary. There is also some ground
for believing that He instituted the
[Page 32]
Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper. While the early church may
not have received a definite command
from Christ to continue these sacraments,
history indicates that the
church did attach significance both
to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
How did the early church begin?
Where did the twelve Apostles go after the Crucifixion?
Unfortunately we have more legend than history. However, from the Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of Paul we may form a fairly accurate picture of this primitive church.
With the exception of Peter, James, and John, the outstanding leaders in the primitive church, we have little authentic information about any of the Apostles. At first the primitive church in Jerusalem was under the supervision of the Twelve Apostles with Peter at its head and there was also a council of elders and a college of deacons. According to tradition Peter went to Rome in A.D. 42 where he was bishop for 25 years. We know that James, the brother of Jesus, took his place with the Twelve Apostles and when they were dispersed he became the head of the church at Jerusalem until his death c. A.D. 62. As the eldest male of the Messianic house he was regarded with unusual authority. In a letter of Peter to James (Clementine Homilies) Peter begins, “Peter to James, the lord and bishop of the Holy Church, under the Father of all, through Jesus Christ.”[5] Clement also addresses him, “Clement to James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, the Holy church of the Hebrews and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God.”[6] While Peter, Paul, and James are the most influential personalities in the primitive church, it was Paul who first realized that Christianity was an independent religion and not an offshoot of Judaism.
IN a study of church order our attention is attracted first to Jerusalem but because of the predominating Jewish influence and the unique position of James, the type of organization we find here will be somewhat different from that of a Gentile church like Antioch. We must remember that at Jerusalem many of the early believers retained their interest in and devotion to Judaism. They had accepted the Messiah, to be sure, but otherwise their devotional life had changed but little. They met for public worship in a “synagogue” similar to that of the Jews. As the Jewish synagogue had a board of presbyters, it was only natural that the Christian “synagogue” should follow the same practice, but James, because of his relation to Jesus, exercised more authority than an ordinary presbyter or bishop. We note here that at the very beginning of the early church, from the time the Apostles were dispersed, this church had a monarchial bishop. Later on this practice became universal.
In the Gentile churches we do not
find an administration consisting of
bishops, presbyters, and deacons at
this early date (A.D. 46). Indeed,
up to the end of the first century no
such system was prevalent in the
churches of Syria. The church at Antioch,
one of the most important capitals
of the East, is typical. Here in
[Page 33]
this first great Gentile church with
its Hellenist congregation, we find
that the leaders are the inspired class,
prophets and teachers rather than
bishops and presbyters. Now Barnabus
and Paul were sent out from Antioch
and as might be expected in the
first churches founded by Paul the
presbyters, although they existed,
were of secondary importance. “God
hath set some in the Church, first
apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly
teachers, then miracles, then gifts of
healing, helps, governments, diverse
kinds of tongues.” (1 Cor. xii. 28).
This is an expression of Paul’s earlier
theory of Church order, but in time
the harassing disturbances at Corinth
demanded more discipline and order,
“governments.” It is apparent to anyone
who reads Paul’s letters to the
Corinthians that there were many
fundamental concepts that had to be
clarified, hence somewhat later, as
Streeter points out, Paul found it
necessary to lay more stress upon a
recognized ministry and less upon
“spiritual gifts.”[7] “Paul and Timothy,
servants of Christ Jesus, to all
the saints in Christ Jesus which are
at Philippi, with (the) bishops and
deacons.” (Phil. i. 1). That is, as
problems arise, an office invested with
recognized authority becomes more
and more necessary. This has led
many to believe that as the administrative
side advances, the spiritual aspect
recedes. In reality, however, you
cannot separate the purely spiritual
from the administrative side of church
order. A generation later we see the
church facing a crisis due to the heretical
teachings that were spread by
wandering preachers posing as apostles
and teachers. Thenceforth simple
preaching was inadequate.
What we witness in this early Church is the struggle first to reconcile “spiritual gifts” and “governments,” and secondly, to establish a sanction for an administrative order comparable to that of spiritual guidance.
The outstanding leader in most individual congregations of the primitive Church was its founder, the Apostle, because he is the first to awaken the community to the new Faith; but he has no exclusive rights aside from the community. All important questions were settled by the community and the apostle, guided by the Holy Spirit. The apostle was a missionary and not a local officer like a bishop; his first concern was founding new churches and his authority was primarily spiritual. Government and discipline were left to the community and in such matters it was sovereign.
Next to the apostles, in the ministry, came the prophets, those spiritual geniuses whose utterances were purely inspirational. In the very nature of the case they were never appointed nor ordained to office. Some historians maintain that their very existence excludes the theory that Christ invested the apostles with any kind of power that was to be transmitted to their successors. While the canonical writings are not explicit enough upon this point it would be presumptuous to assume that in the case of a given religion some perpetual source of divine inspiration, invested with authority (of its founder) would not be possible nor desirable.
[Page 34]
THE apostles and prophets
then are spiritual leaders not confined
to a local church; their function is
teaching and establishing new communities
of believers. In time these
new communities had to stand alone
without the assistance of the apostles
and it was then that the apostles had
to appoint local leaders to look after
the community. That is, the authority
of the apostles is transferred to the
local officers. Thus the apostolic succession
is carried on by the episcopate,
whether monarchical or hierarchical
(one bishop or a college of
bishops).
Hence for the first form of organization we should turn to the individual congregation. Here we find officers, bishops and deacons, whose duties, at least in the beginning, were not concerned with an organized general church. The bond of this early church was not an episcopate but a common faith, hope and love.
The first Christians met in private homes but in time these smaller units united to form city congregations and it is to these that Paul addressed his letters. From Luke’s account of the early church, however, we observe that they went to the synagogues for public worship, “And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart.” (Acts ii. 46). These first converts were filled with spiritual joy and enthusiasm, and without any thought for future organization.
It appears that there were two kinds of meetings in these early communities. The believers would gather together for a more intimate devotion than was extended to those who were only casually interested, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” (Acts ii. 42). And there was a more general meeting for those who had not acknowledged the Christ and who would not be attracted by such phenomena as prophesying. (1 Cor. xiv. 22).
In Acts xvi we find the first record of the Twelve appointing officers (probably deacons) for a special service, relieving the poor. The famine at Jerusalem was another occasion for relief work and here we find for the first time the term elder.
In Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders we obtain some insight into the method of appointing the elders. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts xx. 28). Falconer makes the comment, “. . . which seems to mean that the Apostle did not select for himself, but allowed the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, to do so, in the same way as the church had chosen the Seven.”[8]
TWO HOLY SEPULCHRES
ADELBERT MÜHLSCHLEGEL
IN the midst of Jerusalem, this town so much celebrated in song throughout Christendom, rises the Church of the Holy Tomb, an ancient and venerable building.
Entering its lofty dome, you are surrounded by heavy incense, mystical obscurity. Sacred gold lamps scintillate here and there. You perceive a stone structure in the center of the cupola under which is supposed to rest the body of Christ. A narrow avenue leads into the interior to a stone which constitutes the object of prayerful adoration. Many devout Christians crowd close up to it to spend a few moments in devotion. From the center hall several smaller naves branch off to the sides, for each Christian confession a separate one. Often on Sundays their divine services are held simultaneously. Then you can observe how words and sounds confuse and disturb, words that once were proclaimed to unite mankind in brotherhood, to bring to them peace on earth. At the door Muhammadan policemen are stationed to maintain order, to see that the different confessions do not dispute or even offer violence, as it is said to have happened. And turning your back to this venerable place of worship, stepping out into the glaring sunshine and into the bustle of the town, you come upon a band of tradespeople with their booths set up in front of the church, who obtrusively urge you to buy religious souvenirs.
These contrasts must deeply affect the faithful Christian and compel him to reflect. Is not all this like a great symbol of the religious situation, not only of Christianity, but of all the religions of the world. Entombed in the solid, venerable structure of old traditions, wrapped in obscurity by enigmatical mysticism, adorned with the glitter of human ornamentation, reposes beneath the earth the Living, the Revelation of the Word. Mankind quarrels for admission to it, and because they quarrel they stray farther and farther from truth, until they need part-churches and church-parts for their part-truths. Instead of religion representing a quickening, clear fountain of strength and wisdom to the state for all its questions and exigencies, it needs on the contrary, the support of the nation’s arm, yea, even its force of arms to assert its dignity and maintain order within itself. Whereas the Eternal, the Innermost Reality, like cheap purchasable ware, is hawked and chaffered away on the streets in human disguise.
Where is here a ray of light, a path
[Page 36]
upwards? To remedy such conditions
all over the world do we not stand
in need of a man who not only sets
in motion a lever somewhere in finiteness,
perhaps by reforming an old
religion, or starting out from one Nation’s
viewpoint, but one who possesses
an absolute and unlimited divine
authority, a messenger of God?
Who, for reason of his being a messenger
of God, and because God can
only be One, and Truth is only one,
will not revoke previous messengers
of God and revelations of Truth, but
who will confirm and fulfill them.
Therefore one who must necessarily
divorce eternal, everlasting truth
from the ecclesiastical, non-essential
part which has divided mankind into
religions, confessions and creeds,
wherein humanity has become petrified,
and who establishes a new, genuine
revelation which appeals to all
humanity, and unites all mankind.
WE Bahá’ís know that such a messenger of God has recently walked over this earth, and has fulfilled this world historical mission. We also know where Bahá’u’lláh has completed His earthly career, and where His mortal remains are put to rest.
Bahji,—a precious spot of earth. The noble building rises, far removed from the fray and clamor of the city, hidden from view to the curious, surrounded by green borders of exquisite gardens, simple and yet inspiring reverence, like the seat of a sovereign. Solidly constructed and yet delicate it stands out, encircled by a wreath of columns, ineffably serene, rising between heaven and earth, replete and vibrant with a power mightier than time and space. When we approach this sanctuary, moved by the consecration of the hour, our hearts filled with longing for spiritual intercourse, and not diverted by the fragrant allurement of the earthborn boughs and blossoms of the garden, we come upon the mausoleum next to the Palace. Entering, we leave our shoes outside, and with them all that attaches us to this earth, all dust which still clings to us. The gardeners pass us attar of rose. We enter the bright high vaulted space. Costly carpets are placed around fragrant flowers and decorative plants which here come forth from the soil. Beyond the sacred threshold is the last, most holy chamber under which reposes the body of Bahá’u’lláh.
Indescribably powerful is the spirit which permeates this space. No Pilgrim can fail to sense it, as here his searching souls soars upwards in a feeling of detachment which elsewhere could hardly be attained. The world and all its futilities are lost outside beyond the door, while the heart within you—this treasury of the Friend——opens wide in exultation to absorb the prevailing spirit. Here the soul, alone and free, will find fervent spiritual Union.
You go forth again into the World like one re-born, purified, fortified and full of energy.
Reprinted from “Soune der Wahrheit” by kind permission of the editor. Translated by Olga K. Mills.
LEARNING TO LIVE TOGETHER
MARTHA L. ROOT
AN INTERVIEW WITH HERBERT A. MILLER
ONE of this country’s well known liberalists, Professor Herbert A. Miller, Professor of Sociology in Bryn Mawr College, gave the writer in December, 1936, an interview on the subject of the Bahá’í Faith. I wish to preface the interview by telling “World Order” readers a little about this strong, sane thinker who stands courageously for the oneness of the world of humanity. He attracted nation-wide attention when his contract at Ohio State University was not renewed for the year 1931-1932, since his reputation was such that a spontaneous and almost universal protest arose in the universities throughout America. The three reasons for his dismissal were: support of Ghandi, his attitude on the race question and his objection to compulsory military training in the university. In the investigation that followed he was completely vindicated by the report of the committee of the Association of University Professors.
Professor Miller, an excellent speaker who has been in demand before educational gatherings for many years, was born in New Hampshire of Swedish-Welsh stock, he was graduated from Dartmouth College and had his Ph. D. degree from Harvard in Philosophy and Psychology. Making a specialty of the race problem, he became interested in the general study of the immigrant. While visiting in Bohemia he became intimately acquainted with Professor Masaryk, who became the first President of the Czechoslovak Republic, and has remained his life-long friend; he spent much time also in Russia and Poland. It was in 1915, under the auspices of the Russell Sage Foundation, that Professor Miller made a survey of the immigrant in the schools of Cleveland, the result of which was a radical change throughout the country in the methods of immigrant education. In 1918, he was associated with the Carnegie Corporation’s study of the methods of Americanization, his investigations resulting in the book “Old World Traits Transplanted.” Two other books of his which can with great profit be studied are “Races, Nations and Classes” and “The Beginnings of Tomorrow.”
During the year 1918, in association
with President Masaryk, he organized
and became director of the
Mid-European Union, to which
twelve national groups belonged.
[Page 38]
This work took him to Europe a
great deal and he is regarded as one
of the best informed Americans on
European affairs as well as upon
questions of race. After ten years as
Professor of Sociology at Oberlin College,
he went to Ohio State University
where his special field was race
relations and nationalism. He spent
seven months in Russia and Central
Europe, and in 1929-1930, he traveled
twelve months in Asia, studying
particularly the national and racial
movements in China, India and the
Near East.[1] Few men have a better
understanding of the situation of the
world and what confronts us than has
Professor Miller, and his views about
the Bahá’í Faith and what it is actually
accomplishing are of deep interest.
He said to me during our conversation at his home in Bryn Mawr that as a sociologist, his special field had been racial and national relations: “I've been interested for thirty years in trying to solve conflicts between races and nations, and that falls into the area of Bahá’í interests, as you know. The thing that interested me when I first heard of the Teachings of Bahá’u’lláh was how, coming at this particular set of questions in a totally different way—namely, from a religious background—He had arrived at the same kind of conclusions as I had when I tried to make a scientific approach. Therefore, I was inclined to be interested.”
Professor Miller is very frank, open, sincere, lovable; he said that though his academic snobbishness hesitates to ally itself to any movement and is anxious to stand off from all movements, yet he is glad that everybody is not an academic person! “For many years I have insisted there is only one problem in the world,” he said, “and that problem is learning to live together; and it seems to me that at this time almost every scientific and moral force is driving in that direction. Anthropology and psychology have broken down the previous claims of natural differences between peoples so that now nothing is left except to break down the artificial, cultural, political and economic absurdities that frame themselves into nationalism and various types of group consciousness.”
Dr. Miller added that while an approach
to the solution of these problems
needs to be made through the
scientific and moral methods, one of
the most remarkable teachings of
Bahá’u’lláh—considering the time
when it was made was at least forty
years before the issue could have been
clarified in the West,—is that there
[Page 39]
is no conflict between religion and
science. He considers this one of the
most remarkable in the whole of the
“Utterances” of Bahá’u’lláh and he
adds: “Perhaps my snobbishness does
not permit me to say ‘Revelation’!
This makes it possible for a religion
which is just as universal as thought
itself, really to exist and be vital.
Now, of course, people of other
Faiths accept this principle but at
that time, when Bahá’u’lláh first gave
it, no people accept it, unless there
may have been a very few Muhammadans.
As far as I can discover,
there is nothing in the whole social,
moral program of the Bahá’í Faith
that is in conflict with the most enlightened
findings of social scientists.”
When I asked Professor Miller where he had heard of the Bahá’í Teachings, he said he had first heard of them in our country from Dr. Albert Vail and Mr. Louis Gregory. He said that when he was in Beirut, Syria, in 1930, he was in the Beirut University Hospital where there were two nurses who were Bahá’ís, also he had met Mr. Zaine, son of the Secretary of Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Bahá’í Cause and had been introduced to a cousin of the Guardian, a senior at that time, in the University.
Dr. Miller explained, too, how he had met Bahá’ís in various places and he said: “What appealed to me is their attitude on the race question; none of the feeling of superiority or inferiority of races that still goes on among many Christians, have I ever seen among Bahá’ís. These are personal matters, some of these things can be practised by individuals; but there are other great questions like universal peace that must wait on slow development. The Bahá’ís haven’t yet established an international language in all the schools of the world, they haven't achieved international understanding; many of the Principles of Bahá’u’lláh are not yet fulfilled— perhaps not yet fulfillable, but the important thing is that there is a religious group very much aware of them, which by purity of purposes and practices can nag on other religionists to live up to their own ideals. Both the Bahá’ís and Ghandi insist that all religions are basically aiming to solve these same problems. So somewhere, in their ideals, if they haven’t been cluttered up with theology, there is a pure aim.”
When I asked this interesting professor about his meeting with Shoghi Effendi, he told me: “I had known about Shoghi Effendi when I visited at the American University at Beirut where he had been a student. I had met some Bahá’ís in Jerusalem, and so one of the first things I did when I reached Haifa in the winter of 1926, I went to the house of Shoghi Effendi, and sending in my card mentioned that I had known Dr. Vail and Mr. Louis Gregory. He invited me to tea, and I remember we had tangerines from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Garden that afternoon (such a beautiful smile of pleasure passed over his countenance as he spoke of those delicious tangerines from the Master’s Garden!)
“We had a most delightful time.
As usual I became professional and
asked all the baiting questions I could
think of; we had such a delightful
time that when I came back to Palestine
[Page 40]
in 1930, I repeated my visit to
Shoghi Effendi.”
I remember so well Dr. Miller’s last statement in the illumined conversation that afternoon in his Bryn Mawr home: “I have frequently said that it will be quite a while before the liberal world in practise catches up with the liberal plan of Bahá’ís, and from my academic mountain top, frequently I feel compelled to say: more strength to the Bahá’ís!’”
- ↑ The results of this journey were published serially in World Unity Magazine under the title “Round the World Log of a Sociologist.”
STAR GAZERS
STANTON A. COBLENTZ
- Man plumbs the night; and to the stars he flings
- A question, and he begs an answering gleam;
- For this dull earth, like some portentous dream,
- Weighs down his spirit, and he yearns for wings
- To lift him from the ruck and mire of Things;
- To drown the factory’s whine, the battle’s scream,
- The jangling of hard coin, the wheeze of steam,
- And show that Fountain Light whence purpose springs.
- The hint of something darkly incomplete
- As the sun’s visage seen through dawn-ribbed cloud,
- Haunts us, and turns us to the worlds of space
- For rays the earth-bound sense can never greet;
- And there the eye that shuns the shuffling crowd
- May view a Timeless Countenance face to face.
EDITORIAL PURPOSE
• WORLD ORDER MAGAZINE seeks to mirror forth the principles revealed by Bahá’u’lláh for the renewal and unification of society. These principles it recognizes as the impetus and the goal of all the influences making for regeneration throughout the world. If feels ifself a part of the new world community coming into being. the commonwealth of mind and spirit raised high above the conflicts, the passions, the prejudices and the violences marking the passing of the old order and the birth of the new. Its aim is to maintain a meeting-place consecrated to peace, where minds touched with the spirit of the age may gather for calm and dispassionate discussion of truth. The scope of its content is best defined in the following summary of the Bahá’í Faith:
• “The Bahá’í Faith recognizes the unity of God and of His Prophets, upholds the principle of an unfettered search after truth, condemns all forms of superstitions and prejudice, teaches that the fundamental purpose of religion is to promote concord and harmony, that it must go hand-in-hand with science, and that it constitutes the sole and ultimate basis of a peaceful, an ordered and progressive society. It inculcates the principle of equal opportunity, rights and privileges for both sexes, advocates compulsory education, abolishes extremes of wealth and poverty, exalts work performed in the spirit of service to the rank of worship, recommends the adoption of an auxiliary international language, and provides the necessary agencies for the establishment and safeguarding of a permanent and universal peace.”
TOWARDS THE GOAL OF A NEW WORLD ORDER, DIVINE IN ORIGIN, ALL-EMBRACING IN SCOPE, HUMANITY MUST STRIVE
