In the discussions had by the Orthodox Baha'is about the importance of the living Guardianship to the Cause of Baha'u'llah, we often quote various provisions of the writings of Shoghi Effendi to indicate how the first Guardian of the Faith never wavered from his belief that the Guardianship would continue after his death. He alluded to future Guardians. He laid plans for the erection of the Seat of the Guardianship on Mount Carmel.
Somehow the sans-Guardian Baha'is seem to simply ignore it. I am sure they rationalize it by saying that the Guardian just didn't know the Guardianship would end. This is absurd because he would have known that he didn't appoint anyone to the position. If he never appointed anyone to succeed, and if he really was unable to appoint a successor, why was he wasting time on plans for the office of future guardians?
But there is one passage of Shoghi Effendi's writings that is difficult to explain away:
"Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as 'Abdu'l-Bahá has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God. 'In all the Divine Dispensations,' He states, in a Tablet addressed to a follower of the Faith in Persia, 'the eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been his birthright.' Without such an institution the integrity of the Faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn." (The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 148)(Emphasis added)
Now some of the more creative members of the sans-Guardian organization of violators, remarkably will argue that the Guardianship is not divorced from the World Order of Baha'u'llah. They would say that they always have Shoghi Effendi's writings, and therefore the Guardianship has not been divorced from the Faith.
Lets consider these words "divorced from". The dictionary definition is simply that it is severed or disunited from. There is no longer a living Guardian holding office in the sans-Guardian organization, and yet they believe the Guardianship has not been severed?
Imagine after your ex-wife wins the lottery, trying to suggest that you are not divorced from your ex-wife --- because why? You still have the wedding ring? You have old love letters? You were once her husband so you are not divorced?
I got to wondering whether Shoghi Effendi ever used the words "divorced from" in other contexts, and lo and behold I found some quotations (computers are fantastic). The emphasis in the quotes below were added.
1. Shoghi Effendi, on the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar:
"Divorced from the social, humanitarian, educational and scientific pursuits centering around the Dependencies of the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar, Bahá'í worship, however exalted in its conception, however passionate in fervor, can never hope to achieve beyond the meagre and often transitory results produced by the contemplations of the ascetic or the communion of the passive worshiper." (Baha'i Administration, p. 185)
A pattern seems to be emerging here. I suppose they could say that the Dependencies of the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar are not divorced from it because they once had a nursing home for the elderly at the Wilmette Baha'i House of Worship. Never mind the fact that they no longer have any Dependencies.
2. Shoghi Effendi, on the World Order of Baha'u'llah:
"{T]he Guardian feels the necessity for all teachers to stress the fact that the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh can, under no circumstances, be divorced from the spiritual principles and teachings of the Cause...." (Directives from the Guardian, p. 67)
Good one. Following their logic, they might argue that they once had spiritual principles and teachings of the Cause, so it is not divorced from them, even though everybody knows that there is nothing spiritual about the Baha'i administration of the sans-Guardian variety.
3. Shoghi Effendi, on true religion:
"Divorced from true religion, morals lose their effectiveness and cease to guide and control man's individual and social life. But when true religion is combined with true ethics, then moral progress becomes a possibility and not a mere ideal." (Directives from the Guardian, p. 84)
I think I am getting the hang of this rationalization thing. You just argue that you once had true religion combined with your morals, so moral progress is still a possibility?
4. Shoghi Effendi, on Sohrab (former secretary of Abdul-Baha):
"What he [Sohrab] teaches at present is so far divorced from our beloved Faith, and so tinged with the doctrines of many "cults" which we see thriving at present, as to be almost unrecognizable." (Light of Divine Guidance v I, p. 135)
I get it, but since Sohrab once faithfully followed the teachings, what he teaches is really not divorced from the Faith.
5. Shoghi Effendi on the Bab:
"The Faith of the Báb should not be divorced from that of Bahá'u'lláh." (The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 426)
But we could throw it out now because since it was once united with the Faith of Baha'u'llah, its not really divorced from it.
6. Shoghi Effendi on the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá:
"Being the Child of the Covenant -- the Heir of both the Originator and the Interpreter of the Law of God -- the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá can no more be divorced from Him Who supplied the original and motivating impulse than from the One Who ultimately conceived it." (The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 144)
Yes, but we still have the Will and Testament even though we are no longer following it! I see how this rationalization works!
It makes no sense.
Jeffrey
