MEET WADE FRANSSON
(Baha’i)
By Wade Fransson
Chapter 7 ~ Response to feedback on Oneness – [my Blog #6] :
I appreciate Mr. Straight-2-Da-Point and the others who commented on my prior blog, taking the time to express their perspective on the fundamental principle of the Baha’i Faith regarding the concept of the oneness of religion. First, let me reiterate here that the Baha’i Faith has no clergy, and none of us as individuals speak authoritatively. These blogs reflect my personal understanding of the teachings of the Baha’i Faith. That is not just a disclaimer. It is an important consideration as I wade into this discussion, pun on my name intended.
The notion of the oneness of religion, as advocated by the Baha’i Faith, indeed challenges traditional paradigms and invites individuals to reconsider their understanding of religious diversity and, as we’ll see, the nature of religion itself.
Perhaps that is one reason why, although I don’t believe I wrote anything in my blog that implied that the Baha’i concept of one religion imagines the homogenization or erasure of diverse religious traditions, the responses implied that I had. To be clear, as Jay Tyson was in his response: “Baha’is recognize that there is value in the religions of the past, and make no attempt to shut them down.” A strongly worded admonition from Shoghi Effendi, ‘Abdu’l Bahá’s grandson–the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith–makes this abundantly clear:
The Faith standing identified with the name of Bahá’u’lláh disclaims any intention to belittle any of the Prophets gone before Him, to whittle down any of their teachings, to obscure, however slightly, the radiance of their Revelations, to oust them from the hearts of their followers, to abrogate the fundamentals of their doctrines, to discard any of their revealed Books, or to suppress the legitimate aspirations of their adherents.
(Letter written by Shoghi Effendi to the Baha’is of the West dated 28 March 1941, The Promised Day is Come, p.62
In fact, because of decades of religious involvement prior to becoming a Baha’i, I’m sensitive to the fact that some Baha’is do seem to imply that others should convert to the Baha’i faith. Here again, the authoritative texts and the admonitions from Baha’i institutions make the position of the Baha’i Faith clear. For example, the Universal House of Justice, the supreme body of the Baha’i faith, wrote a letter to a Baha’i on January 3, 1982, explaining:
It is true that Bahá’u’lláh lays on every Bahá’í the duty to teach His Faith. At the same time, however, we are forbidden to proselytize, so it is important for all believers to understand the difference between teaching and proselytizing.
And while the importance of understanding this distinction is thus clear, it causes an example of what I call the “razor’s edge” problem–the analogy of walking on a razor’s edge. In complex matters, there are often a number of very fine lines that are easily crossed. This contrasts two scientific perspectives. While, as this entry on “Live Science” explains, Occam’s Razor refers to 14th-century Franciscan friar William of Ockham’s translated maxim “Plurality must never be posited without necessity.” In other words, all else being equal, simplicity is best. Einstein countered this idea with this wonderful quip: “Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler”
The responses to my Blog #6 highlight the challenge of these competing methods of resolving this complex issue. The importance of not crossing the line between the importance of recognizing both the uniqueness and commonalities among different faith traditions, including the Baha’i Faith.
To further illustrate the complexity, all religions are blessed, to a greater or lesser degree, with texts they consider authoritative and, again to a greater or lesser degree, interpretations of those texts that are considered authoritative. This presents a number of common challenges, one of which is the shift in language and cultural context over time.
Consider the following words, by way of example.
“Awful”: Originally meant “full of awe,” but its meaning shifted to signify something extremely bad or unpleasant.
“Silly”: Originally meant “blessed” or “innocent,” but over time came to denote foolishness or lack of seriousness.
“Egregious”: Originally meant “remarkable” or “outstanding,” but now signifies something conspicuously bad or shocking.
Similarly, in a religious context, the word “church” has undergone changes in meaning. Originally denoting a community or assembly, it now commonly refers to a building used for Christian worship.
The evolution of language and its impact on religious terminology is evident in the word “religion” itself, which has a rich and varied history, evolving over time to encompass different meanings and connotations. In ancient civilizations such as the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greek, the term “religion” was usually associated with rituals, practices, and beliefs related to the worship of gods and goddesses. These religious systems played a central role in shaping social order, morality, and cultural identity within these societies. Religion permeated all aspects of society, influencing politics, economics, and philosophy–in other words, all daily activities and worldviews.
With the spread of Christianity throughout Europe during the Middle Ages, the concept of religion underwent significant changes. During this period, religion became increasingly institutionalized, with the establishment of hierarchical structures, clergy, and religious institutions such as churches and monasteries. The word “religion” came to be associated more closely with organized forms of worship, doctrinal beliefs, and dogmatic practices. In this context, religion served not only as a source of spiritual guidance but also as a means of social control and political authority.
The Enlightenment and Modern Secularism:
The Enlightenment era of the 17th and 18th centuries ushered in a period of intellectual and philosophical upheaval, challenging traditional religious authority and dogma. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Kant advocated for the separation of church and state, promoting rationalism, empiricism, and secularism as alternatives to religious orthodoxy. During this time, the meaning of the word “religion” began to shift, reflecting broader changes in societal attitudes towards faith, reason, and individual autonomy.
The 19th century witnessed the rise of romanticism and idealism, which emphasized subjective experience, emotion, and intuition in understanding religion, while the 20th century witnessed a diversity of approaches to defining religion, along with belief in supernatural beings or rituals. Functional definitions emphasized the social and psychological functions of religion, such as providing meaning, social cohesion, and coping mechanisms. Family resemblance definitions recognized the diverse and overlapping characteristics of religions, rejecting the idea of a single criterion for defining religion.
There is an excellent article titled The Concept of Religion in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (March 8, 2022) which highlights shifts in how scholars and thinkers have conceptualized this complex phenomenon. In the article, “family resemblance definitions” are used to describe a way of understanding concepts like religion that don’t have a single defining feature but instead exhibit a set of overlapping characteristics. The term is derived from Ludwig Wittgenstein’s idea of family resemblance, where members of a family may share certain traits without all sharing a single defining characteristic. Similarly, in the context of defining religion, different religious traditions may share certain features (such as belief in a higher power, rituals, community, etc.), but there isn’t one feature that all religions have in common. Instead, it’s the overlapping similarities among various religious practices and beliefs that contribute to our understanding of what constitutes religion. This approach allows for a more flexible and inclusive understanding of religion, recognizing its diverse manifestations across different cultures and contexts.
Contemporary scholars continue to grapple with the complexities of defining religion, incorporating insights from various disciplines such as phenomenology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. They emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach that takes into account the diversity and complexity of religious phenomena, as well as the influence of social, cultural, and historical contexts. I believe that is what is going on here in this discussion–which is awesome.
And in writing this blog it occurred to me that we Baha’is tend not to use the term religion to describe our, umm, religion… We generally always call it the Baha’i Faith–which is kind of funny, actually, in this context. Which leads to this section on the difference between Religion and Faith.
It’s essential to recognize that while religions share core spiritual truths, the diversity of doctrines and laws that they hold near and dear reflect the adaptability of faith traditions to different times and circumstances. And yet religious beliefs often tend in the direction of applying these doctrines and laws dogmatically and universally, judging others by the standards set up within one’s own religion that have not been agreed to by those being judged.
The religion, founded by Bahá’u’lláh in the 19th century, emphasizes unity, diversity, and the essential oneness of all religious traditions. It now seems to me that understanding the nuanced differences in the concepts of “religion” and “faith,” which play distinct yet complementary roles in the spiritual life of individuals and communities, is critical to addressing this topic with Intellectual Coherence.
Religion in the Baha’i Faith:
In the Baha’i Faith, the term “religion” is often used to refer to the collective body of spiritual teachings, beliefs, practices, and institutions that have emerged throughout history to guide humanity’s spiritual journey. Bahá’u’lláh affirms the essential unity of all religions, viewing them as successive stages in the unfolding of one divine plan for humanity’s spiritual evolution. From this perspective, religion is seen as a dynamic and progressive force, capable of fostering unity, harmony, and social transformation.
Unlike some traditional interpretations of religion which may emphasize exclusivity, dogma, and sectarianism, the Baha’i concept of religion emphasizes inclusivity, diversity, and unity in diversity. Baha’is believe that all religions contain elements of truth and guidance, and that each has contributed to the spiritual development of humanity. The Baha’i Faith thus encourages individuals to approach religion with an open mind and a spirit of inquiry, seeking to understand and appreciate the wisdom and insights contained within different religious traditions.
Faith in the Baha’i Faith:
In contrast to the concept of religion, the term “faith” in the Baha’i Faith refers to the personal relationship between the individual soul and the divine reality. Faith is understood as a dynamic and transformative force that empowers individuals to strive for spiritual growth, moral excellence, and the realization of their highest potential. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá , the son of Bahá’u’lláh, emphasized the importance of faith as the foundation of spiritual life, stating, “Faith is the magnet which draws the confirmation of the Merciful One.”
While religion provides a framework for understanding and practicing spirituality within a community context, faith is a deeply personal and intimate experience that transcends institutional boundaries and cultural norms. Baha’is believe that true faith is characterized by sincerity, trust, and a wholehearted commitment to the pursuit of truth and righteousness. Faith is not confined to any particular religious tradition or set of beliefs but is rather a universal and universalizing principle that unites all seekers of truth on the path towards spiritual enlightenment.
Perhaps this is why, bringing this full circle to my first blog, where I referenced my introduction to the Baha’i Faith, the Universal Justice produced One Common Faith as the follow-up book to its April 2002 Letter to the World’s Religious Leaders.
In conclusion, the concepts of “religion” and “faith” play distinct yet interconnected roles within the Baha’i Faith. While religion encompasses the collective body of spiritual teachings and practices that guide humanity’s spiritual journey, faith represents the personal relationship between the individual soul and the divine reality. Together, these concepts form the foundation of the Baha’i approach to spirituality, emphasizing unity, diversity, and the essential oneness of all religious traditions. Through the harmonious integration of religion and faith, Baha’is seek to foster a world in which all religions and their adherents are characterized by peace, justice, and spiritual flourishing for all humankind.
While we may hold differing views on the concept of religions, oneness and unity, I believe our exchange of ideas contributes to a broader conversation about the nature of religious diversity and the pursuit of spiritual truth. Thank you, Mr. Straight-2-Da-Point, and the others, for sharing your perspectives, and I look forward to further dialogue on this important topic.
It’s about time Mr. Wade. 😁
I love this follow-up blog. Thanks for clearing up a few things. That guy Jay (whoever he was) had me thinking that the Baha’is were somewhat off, with his explanation of the “one religion” concept. You’ve given a more lucid explanation. With that said, I suppose my only remaining quirk is with your “no clergy” inner-workings. To me, having no clergy is super problematic.
• Without formal training or designated clergy, there may be questions about the depth of religious knowledge and interpretation provided by lay members of your Universal House of Justice.
• Lay members may bring personal biases or limited understanding to religious discussions and decision-making processes, potentially impacting the impartiality and accuracy of their rulings.
• The absence of a hierarchical clergy structure raises questions about the legitimacy of decisions made by the Universal House of Justice and the mechanisms for accountability within the religious community.
• Without a centralized clergy figure, ensuring consistency in interpreting religious texts and resolving disputes may be more challenging, leading to potential variations in beliefs and practices among followers. You have to agree with this if your mind is open. This is no different than a Cardinal being elected as Pope, and all of a sudden he becomes infallible, as well as becoming the vicar of Christ. SMH!!!
Dear Mr. Straight-2-Da-Point.
Thanks so much for reading and providing your kind words and thoughtful questions. And by thoughtful, I mean really good – challenging – grist for the mill of discussion, raising important concerns and points to ponder and consult about.
Let’s start by addressing the challenges you see in the “no clergy” model and its corresponding “inner workings”. Full disclosure – I was ordained into a global ministry, and participated fully in the “inner workings” of a “hierarchical clergy structure” of a religion with a “centralized clergy figure”. My experience brought me to the opposite conclusion as it raised questions about the legitimacy of decisions made by the hierarchical clergy and the centralized clergy figure. And when you reference a “Cardinal being elected as a Pope” who all of a sudden “becomes infallible as well as becoming the vicar of Christ.” Your SMH conclusion leads me to believe you don’t think this is a good thing either, so maybe I’m missing something, because your conclusion seems to support the need for a different model.
Be that as it may, while there may be benefits to having leaders dedicated solely to the study of the Word of God, and service to the congregations, history illustrates the problems that tend to arise in those systems. I’ve documented examples of my personal experiences with this across the first two volumes of a trilogy I wrote – The People of the Sign, and The Hardness of the Heart. They illustrate, among the many other topics covered, how the best of intentions of the clergy do not necessarily lead to the right outcomes. In the end, I decided to resign from the paid ministry, and the reason I give to explain my decision was that I needed to separate my faith from my paycheck.
As an unpaid lay pastor I then tried to work with people of faith outside that hierarchical system. In doing so I experienced even more fully than before that those raised under organized, hierarchical, “paid shepherds” tended to want the “benefits” of what we ourselves had referred to as a “Pay and Pray” system – a system where that was the role of the laity. They had become dependent on this two-way, reciprocal dysfunction. To sum up my answer to your second bullet directly, I’m more concerned about the bias of those being paid by the system, and the tendency to – intentionally or not, subtly or more overtly – prey and play upon those who pay and pray.
But now let me also directly address your concerns about the consistency or wisdom of Universal House of Justice’s decisions as a result of not having arisen through a hierarchical paid clergy structure. And I’ll try to do so with great reserve and reverence, to avoid, in any way minimizing the high esteem I and other Baha’is hold for the beauty, elegance, efficacy, and legitimacy of what we call “The Administrative Order” of the Baha’i Faith. And, again, these are but my personal views, my own personal understanding, at this time.
First, there is a hierarchy within the Baha’i Administrative Order. Local spiritual assemblies, composed of 9 individuals from the community, age 21 or older, are formed through elections, in which every member is eligible, and expected to serve if elected. Those elected are thus known, personally, to those voting at the grassroots level. They have responsibility for the local communities, and they know the members, because they are from among them, not flying in from some seminary. Thus the hierarchy, which was ordained from the top down, through the revelation of Baha’u’llah, is built up from the bottom up. And from this bottom layer delegates are elected to elect the next level. As the Community grows, some changes are being implemented in large communities and/or regionally, adding a level, but whether directly or through an additional level of voting – these delegates then elect national bodies of 9, who have overall responsibility for the faith in a given nation, under the direction and guidance of the international body, the Universal House of Justice. That international body is elected by the members of the National Spiritual Assemblies, who are the delegates that do so. The Universal House Members are elected for five year terms, the National and Local Spiritual Assemblies are elected annually.
As such, again – imho – some of the benefits of a hierarchical system (whatever they are, and without defining what they are) are maintained, while the two potential flaws I mentioned (the issue of what Jesus called “hirelings” in John 10:11-13, and a narrow focus on study and service, independent of the real life experience of having to work “out in the “real world”) and perhaps others, are eliminated or minimized.
But now let me address one of the most challenging aspects of what you wrote. The capacity of the Universal House of Justice, given how they are chosen, and the issue of Infallibility. It’s unclear to me if you are aware that Baha’is view the Universal House of Justice as being “infallible”. I put that in quotes, because I can’t take the time in this response to even try to define it here, or share nuanced interpretations of what it might mean, or how it is different from, say, the infallibility that Catholics believe is inherent in a Pope. This may be a subject for a future blog, or it may be a space upon which I, like the angels, should fear to tread. But I provide a couple of thoughts at this time for personal contemplation only. I probably won’t want to get into a discussion on it, but – after further prayer and study – I may feel more comfortable trying to address any questions in a future blog.
First, there is a qualitative, along with the quantitative difference, between a body of 9 who must consult and reach agreement, and a single individual with the authority to decide and speak authoritatively as an individual, before making decisions and issuing communications.
Secondly, in the Baha’i Faith we are protected by clear limits on the Authority accorded the Universal House of Justice. It may not override or reinterpret any of the authoritative Writings, which include those of Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l Baha, and Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian. This limit is clearly defined and well understood by the institutions of the Baha’i Faith and their members.
I hope this is helpful in further understanding the Baha’i Faith, and thanks again for your input and questions.