Church and State in the World Order of Baha'u'llah
by Sen McGlinn1994-11-06
Because the Bahá'í Faith offers a definite model for both the political and spiritual transformation of the human world, it is liable to be criticized and even feared on the sensitive issue of the relation which it proposes between the religious and political institutions. The question is made even more current by the republication, in the framework of the Aqdas, of Bahá'u'lláh's statement that: "All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice ... " This was already published in Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, page 27 (the thirteenth Glad-tidings) and page 129 (the Eighth Ishraq), but is now printed with the Aqdas, in Other Sections, page 91. Its position in the Kitab-i Aqdas, "the Charter of the future world civilization",  "this Most Holy Book, whose provisions must remain inviolate for no less than a thousand years, and whose system will embrace the entire planet"  gives it a new importance. It doesn't help that some published Bahá'í books  say that our aim is to establish a church state. For instance, John Robarts, in The Vision of Shoghi Effendi, writes that "the Bahá'í spiritual assemblies will be the local government and the national spiritual assemblies the national government." Jeff Simmonds, who is in other respects a very sympathetic non-Bahá'í commentator on the Faith, said:
While it is often down-played by Bahá'ís, the fact is that the ultimate goal of the Bahá'í Faith is the establishment of a completely Bahá'í society which means a Bahá'í State or a theocracy where religion and politics, or "church" and state are not separate. The Universal House of Justice will be the governing body of the world or of those states which become Bahá'í. This goal is not incidental, but is central to the teachings of the Faith. 
Denis MacEoin writes that "the Bahá'ís are actively working to establish religious states in which the functions of government will be taken over by Bahá'í institutions". 
One does not have to desire the distinction of persecution to see the potential danger here. There are now a number of countries in which the Bahá'í community represents a significant portion of the population, and the question of what the Bahá'ís intend eventually to create in those countries and in the world will be asked. One book has already referred to "a disturbing scenario for a science fiction film. Imagine a religious group ruling the entire earth, imposing its shalls and shall nots, and the frightening possibility of its getting out of control."  These fears could not only draw fire from the right where (among certain fundamentalist Christian groups) the idea of world unity is identified with the anti-christ - they could also deprive us of support from the left. With separation of church and state being subjected to quite creative reinterpretations from the religious right in North America, and being considered an alien concept in much of the Moslem world,  it may be difficult for the progressive elements in society to distinguish between the threat of an old-style church state and the new Bahá'í version.
To return to the Aqdas texts: "All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice ... " This doesn't in fact give us much to go on: it is open to a range of interpretations from theocracy to something approximating the present situation, in which Bahá'í institutions may only participate in politics - in the sense of acting in the world of public politics - with the permission of the Universal House of Justice. There is a self-interpretation in the Lawh- i-Dunya:
According to the fundamental laws which We have formerly revealed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas and other Tablets, all affairs are committed to the care of just kings and presidents and of the Trustees of the House of Justice (Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, page 93).
This doesn't help in narrowing the possible interpretations of our original text - quite the opposite. There is also a passage at paragraph 95 of the Aqdas:
None must contend with those who wield authority over the people; leave unto them that which is theirs, and direct your attention to men's hearts (p. 54).
This might be interpreted as advocating political quietism, in which the religious institutions try to ignore the existence of civil authorities.
Another Aqdas passage speaks of a ruler who will "rule with justice, who will gather together the flock of God which the wolves have scattered" (Para 91). In a similar passage at paragraph 84, the King who aids the cause is called "the very eye of mankind" and "the fountainhead of blessings unto the whole world". This looks rather like the model of the prince as God's vicar and paterfamilias, looking after the moral and religious life of the people, that we find in Erasmus.  This line of thought, in the Erastian theologians and jurist who led the Reformation, led to the emergence of territorial churches (Landeskirchen), in which the prince had virtually the position of a Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. At the other extreme, at paragraph 82 Bahá'u'lláh says:
"Ye are but vassals, O kings of the earth! He Who is the King of Kings hath appeared..."
but then goes on to say:
It is not Our wish to lay hands on your kingdoms. Our mission is to seize and possess the hearts of men.." (para 83)
In other words we find grounds in the Aqdas itself for every position from Erastianism, through formal separation, to a theocracy. As with many other thorny issues in Aqdas, I think the text can best be approached by going around it: that is, by looking in the Bahá'í Writings generally for an understanding and a set of principles which can provide a context for the interpretation of the Aqdas text.
I propose to examine the Bahá'í teachings on the relations between church and state, looking in two directions at once: on one hand we need to have a few clear and memorable landmarks that can be used to refute criticisms on this point, on the other hand, we need to have answers for ourselves about our ultimate aims, about the ultimate shape of a Bahá'í state, about the theory behind our relationship with the state in general. Is the civil state no more than a temporary, perhaps necessary evil? Or is it an institution mandated by God, whose essence corresponds to one of the attributes of God, so that the state's continued existence has its roots in the fundamental metaphysical beliefs of our Faith? Is the principle of obedience to the civil authorities which at present governs our behaviour a short-term tactic adopted during the period in which we have no political power, or a permanent principle as unchangeable as other basic principles such as the equality of men and women, the oneness of the human race, etc.? Our understandings here will have an immediate effect on our relationships with others as we seek to "attract people of capacity", and as the community is "drawn more deeply into dealing with world issues".  If we harbour the idea that there is a fundamental hostility between the Bahá'í idea and political processes, our present relationships with those involved in those processes cannot be entirely sincere.
There is a great deal in the Bahá'í writings relevant to this question, but the material is by no means clear. There are problems of terminology, so that the word 'legislature', for instance, may mean different things in different parts of the Bahá'í Writings, or it may have a meaning in the Bahá'í writings which is slightly different to that which we find in the dictionary. There are problems of translation, particularly where the talks of 'Abdu'l-Bahá have been translated ad hoc by a translator whose grasp of the subject, or of English, were limited. We have pilgrim's notes of sayings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá or Shoghi Effendi which may directly contradict their authentic texts, but which cannot be discarded without asking whether there may be some truth behind them. And we have to bear in mind the possibility - but only the possibility - that any contradictions which we find may be due not to our lack of understanding, but to the fact that we are trying to bring together texts which refer to different periods in the evolution of the World Order structure.
I have made a preliminary survey of the territory, and selected three 'landmarks' which are easily memorable and which seem to me to sum up the fundamental principles which can be called on for apologetic purposes:
1) Bahá'u'lláh says:
The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath bestowed the government of the earth upon the kings ... That which He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men's hearts..." (Gleanings, CXV).
But this does not mean that the kings and governments have a divine right to do as they please. Bahá'u'lláh wrote to the kings and rulers of the world. He did not tell them to stop governing, but rather to govern according to the laws of God, to be just, to root out corruption and to moderate taxation. But when he wrote to Pope Pius IX he told him to give up the power he had as ruler of the papal states.  In other words, I will argue that the separation of church and state, in a certain sense, is a Bahá'í principle.
2) The civil and religious administrations of a Bahá'í social order are distinct but not separate: they are organs of one body, whose distinct natures are required so that they can work together. In his Will and Testament, 'Abdu'l-Bahá wrote:
This House of Justice enacteth the laws and the government enforceth them. The legislative body must reinforce the executive, the executive must aid and assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony of these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm and strong ..." [pp 14 - 15].
I will argue that the separation of church and state in the Bahá'í conception is the separation of two distinct organs of one body: it is not a balance of powers in the Burkean style, and it is not the exclusion of religious institutions and personal religious convictions from the public sphere which some separationists have argued for.  I will use the term 'differentiation' rather than 'separation' to denote the difference.
3) Shoghi Effendi wrote, in World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 66:
Theirs is not the purpose, . . . to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country's constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.
Thus the differentiation between Bahá'í Church and Bahá'í state, while it is justified on the basis of quite abstract theological principles, must have a permanent concrete expression in two orders - the machinery of Bahá'í administration and the governments of countries.
These are my three landmarks: points that I think we should be teaching at summer-schools and including in deepening materials, so that ultimately every Bahá'í would be prepared to at least deflect the accusation that the Bahá'ís intend to establish a theonomic state or theocracy. The reasons for selecting these points, and their more detailed implications, will I hope be clear from what follows, in which I will try to dive deeper into the theological justification for these teachings.
My selection of these landmarks is an interpretation which is based not only on my reading in the Writings on this question, but also on my whole understanding of the Bahá'í teachings. What do we mean by 'unity', as Bahá'ís? The passage in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to a 'close union' between the legislative body (apparently the House of Justice) and the executive (apparently the civil government). But if we say 'the union of church and state' in a Bahá'í context this, as is often the case, may mean something rather different than what the same words would mean in a western, or Islamic, or Jewish, context. Equally, the separation of church and state in the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh may mean something rather new.
So in justifying my selection and interpretation, I have to start not with the government and the house of justice, but with the Bahá'í administrative order which is the "pattern of the New World Order."  The administrative order is a unified system, but it has an ORGANIC unity, characterised by division into separate organs, each with its own intrinsic nature and mode of operation, and each organ requiring the others. I think if we really grasp how fundamental this pattern of organic differentiation is to the Bahá'í structure, and how it is based on Bahá'í teachings about the attributes of God and the metaphysical nature of the creation, questions about the particular constitutional relationship which may be desirable in a particular nation at a particular time, and the rather more interesting question about the moral relationships between being religious and being a citizen, will fall into place.
The third of my landmarks was Shoghi Effendi's statement that the machinery of Bahá'í administration is not, under any circumstances, to supersede national governments.  This holds out the prospect of two distinct systems of government: the Bahá'í administration and the civil administration,  functioning at local, national, and international levels. So we need a model of the relationship between these systems, which I propose to derive from the relationships between institutions within the Bahá'í administrative order.
When we look at the unity of the Bahá'í administrative order we find that it is, paradoxically, characterised by divisions. There seems to be a consistent pattern in which institutions are differentiated from a partner institution which operates on a radically different basis. I will go further and say they operate on metaphysically different bases, because they embody different ideas.
The most obvious of these differentiations is between the twin institutions of the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice, the one hereditary, the other elected, the one focused on one individual who holds the office for life, the other an institutional form with the minimum possible emphasis on the individuals who, for their elected terms, comprise it. The one devoted to the interpretation of the sacred texts, the other to legislation for matters not contained in those texts. The one making interpretations which become part of the sacred text and may never be altered, the other applying principle to the needs of the time, and revoking its own legislation as required. Each requires the other,  `Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred domain of the other'. 
I would suggest that these differences are not just incidental peculiarities, but rather evidence that there is in each institution something like a hidden genetic code, what Plato would have called its idea,  which determines its own nature and development. All of the details of its operation are the necessary outcome of its own inherent nature.
These differences between the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice are reflected systematically in the differences between the elected and appointed institutions: each arm developing according to its own idea. If we understand these ideas, if we form some picture of the inner nature which drives the operation of each kind of organ, then the details of their operations and of how they are to work together should pose no difficulties. In the Universal House of Justice's recent letter to the NSA of the USA,  they refer, in fact, to the need for the NSA "to obtain an integrated understanding of the Counsellors' responsibilities and sphere of action in relation to your own." and provide an outline of the different operational principles of the two kinds of institution. It is important to note here that the two organs are not separated according to spheres of operations, they "share in the functions of propagation and protection", but rather differentiated by different manners of operation, derived from their distinct charters in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
There is a parallel differentiation between the fund and the Huququ'llah, the one based on the voluntary principle, the other an obligation, the one given to and administered by elected institutions, the other in the hands of appointed trustees. The money of the funds flows from the bottom up, with the donors participating in the institutions which decide on the use of the funds, or even specifying the use to which their own donation is to be put, while the Huququ'llah is passed directly to the top and disbursed downwards. One could say that the idea animating the institution of the fund is 'participation', while the idea of the Huququ'llah is 'surrender'. And that is why, when we are giving to the fund, the right of the individual to specify the use to which a donation is put, and the duty of the institutions to respect that wish, is a fundamental Bahá'í principle, but when we give to the custodian of the Huququ'llah that right and principle do not exist!
Another differentiation can be found between the Feast and the Spiritual Assembly: the one comprising all believers who can be there on the day, the other with a fixed membership. The one acting as an accumulator for the power which resides in the individual, the other exercising institutional authority over its expression. The first being most valuable, often, for the minority or purely personal opinions expressed there, the latter functioning on the principle of majority vote, its decisions announced without reference to the divergent or minority views which may have been expressed in the consultation.
One could go on: the national convention and the National Spiritual Assembly, the international convention and the Universal House of Justice, the local or regional convention and the delegate to the national convention, the House of Justice and the House of Worship, and so on.
On the basis of these differentiations I think we can venture a definition of 'organic unity', the structural principle underlying the Bahá'í administrative order, as a unity based on a differentiation into pairs of distinct organs, each of which needs the other in order to fully express its own nature, and each developing freely according to its own distinctive principle. It is interesting to ask why we seem always to find pairs of institutions, and never triplets or foursomes. 'Abdu'l-Bahá notes the same pattern recurring even in subatomic physics:
...the union of created things doth ever yield most laudable results. From the pairing of even the smallest particles in the world of being are the grace and bounty of God made manifest; and the higher the degree, the more momentous is the union. 'Glory be to Him Who hath created all the pairs, of such things as earth produceth, and out of men themselves, and of things beyond their ken.' 
Dhikrul'llah Khadem, in The Vision of Shoghi Effendi recalls;
"I remember the time I was in the presence of Shoghi Effendi when he spoke about the significance of twin things in the Cause. In fact, he sent a cable about this to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the British Isles. In this cable, he told us about the significance of twin occurrences in this Cause. He told the Assembly that we have twin cities - holy cities - `Akka and Haifa; twin houses - the House of Shiraz and the House of Baghdad; twin Manifestations - the Manifestation of the Bab and that of Bahá'u'lláh. He continued, telling us everything is twin: twin festivals - the birthday of the Bab and that of Bahá'u'lláh; twin monuments - of the brother and mother of `Abdu'l-Bahá .... After explaining these things, he paused and looked at me deeply and said, "In the Cause of God everything is twin."Another passage which comes to mind is in the 'marriage tablet':
... that from the union of these two seas of love a wave of tenderness may surge and cast the pearls of pure and goodly issue on the shore of life. "He hath let loose the two seas, that they meet each other: Between them is a barrier which they overpass not. Which then of the bounties of your Lord will ye deny? From each He bringeth up greater and lesser pearls." (Bahá'í Prayers (US edition), page 106. The citation is from Quran 55: 19-22)
This suggests that the reason for the consistent pattern of two-ness which we find in the Bahá'í pattern of order may have some relation to love. We do not find threesomes or foursomes because love is most perfectly expressable between two, but the two must never become one - crossing the barrier between them and losing their individual identities - although, in the nature of love, they forever long to do so. In the course of the gradual development of distinct church and state institutions, many theoretical and practical justifications for their separation have been proposed. But so far as I know, nobody has previously suggested that one reason for keeping the identites of church and state distinct is so that they can love one-another! But this takes us beyond the metaphor of organic unity, and into higher and speculative realms. Let us return to organic unity, defined as 'unity based on differentiation into pairs of distinct organs, each of which needs the other in order to fully express its own nature, and each developing freely according to its own distinctive principle.'
Such an organic unity, I would suggest, also characterises the relationship between the religious and civil organs of the Bahá'í commonwealth. And might it not apply, in a truly integrated society, to the relations between the religious, political, commercial, scientific, and cultural enterprises, and the world of nature? Bahá'u'lláh explicitly applies the organic metaphor to the whole:
Regard ye the world as a man's body, which is afflicted with divers ailments, and the recovery of which dependeth upon the harmonizing of all of its component elements. Each of the principle organs of the world body is itself, necessarily, internally differentiated. Each is vital to the whole. None, of course, can take the place of another. While the religious order is the world of ultimate value for humans, and in this sense the Universal House of Justice can be seen as the supreme institution, it cannot, and cannot wish to, absorb to itself the functions or intrinsic principles properly belonging to the other organs - just as the brain cannot become a circulatory system, or instruct the liver to grow according to any pattern other than that 'idea' of a liver which is coded into every cell. It would be unhealthy even to try. As `Abdu'l-Bahá says:
Glory be unto Him who hath produced growth in the adjoining fields of various natures! Glory be unto Him who irrigated them with the same waters gushing forth from that Fountain! Shoghi Effendi has said that the "formal and complete separation of Church and State" will be part of the process of regeneration in Persia,  and history gives us some reason to think that some separation may be essential for the health of any society. It may even be unavoidable. Those societies in which the religious institutions have tried to absorb the whole of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions have not been successful, and all have developed de jure or de facto civil institutions. 
We also see that progress from primitive social organisations at the level of the kinship group through successive levels of urbanisation and nation-building has been accompanied by a progressive differentiation of social functions: the priest, the warrior, the king, the blacksmith, and the herbalist leading to the marvellously differentiated interdependent structures of a nation. There is no apparent reason to suppose that the unity which is the goal of the Bahá'í movement should require the reversal of this trend.
The principle of organic unity gives us the key to understanding the constitutional relationship between civil and religious authorities.
Before we try to apply this principle to make a model of the global constitutional law which includes both the Universal House of Justice, and a world legislature, a world executive, and a world tribunal,  I would like to look at some passages in the writings regarding monarchy and kings and rulers in general. It is primarily in these passages that we find the religious dimension of civil government. Government is not a regrettable necessity, or an economic and administrative arrangement, it has a religious dimension as an institution ordained by God. Its justification lies not in some supposed 'civil contract' between the citizens, but rather in the very nature of the Kingdom of God.
I believe that the position of the kings in Bahá'u'lláh's thinking gives us a glimpse of the metaphysical roots of the relation between the religious and civil orders. Bahá'u'lláh does not write as a political scientist or philosopher, proposing a workable structure for human society on the basis of his experience of human nature and knowledge of political history. He writes as the Manifestation of the Logos, which is the underlying metaphysical rationale of the universe.  of God, and the 'universal mind' (see note 26). See Bahá'u'lláh's Lawh-i-Hikmat, in Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, pp 140-141, also Juan Cole, The Concept of Manifestation in the Bahá'í Writings, Bahá'í Studies, vol IX, and Julio Savi, The Eternal Quest for God, pp. 34-40.] Where the political scientist examines how things are, and how people behave, Bahá'u'lláh looks into the heart of the universe  and tells us how the world is to be ordered if it is to conform to the fundamental patterns which He finds there. These fundamental patterns, collectively known as the Kingdom of God, correspond to the attributes of God.  One of these attributes is sovereignty or kingship.  The kings are called "manifestations of the power, and the daysprings of the might and riches, of God."  The rulers and kings of the earth, together, are called "the symbols of the power of God",  "the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God." 
Very often in Bahá'u'lláh's writings we find the phrase 'kings and rulers', and the 'kings' are usually clearly symbols of the power of civil government in whatever form. But monarchs form a special case of the general principle that the authority of government is a token of the authority of God. Bahá'u'lláh wrote that "Although a republican form of government profiteth all the peoples of the world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of the signs of God. We do not wish that the countries of the world should remain deprived thereof. If the sagacious combine the two forms into one, great will be their reward in the presence of God." 
Incidentally, I find the word 'remain' in this citation interesting: does it not imply the re-establishment or new establishment of monarchies in nations which are at present republics? And since this is a teaching found in the Bahá'í writings, would the Bahá'í institutions have any role in assisting this process?
"A just king," Bahá'u'lláh writes, "enjoyeth nearer access unto God than anyone."  Thus when we come to look at the constitution of the civil order we will have to ensure that our model has a place for monarchy, in organic union with an elected government.
However, to return to more general considerations, applicable to kings and rulers in general: In Bahá'u'lláh's time the proper relationship between religious authorities and the Shah, and the role, if any, of elected government was a hot potato. The shahs claimed divine sanction, and even a religious role as 'defender of the faith', but were often of rather heterodox religious opinions. The traditions of Shi'ih Islam ran counter to a strong state authority,  since they rejected the authority of the Caliphs and blamed the Caliph Yazid for the martyrdom of the third Imam. Only the hidden Imam could therefore claim full legitimacy. Some Shi'ihs said that all rulers were in essence usurpers and should be shunned, others accepted the state grudgingly as better than anarchy, and some - especially after the establishment of a Shi'ih dynasty in Iran in 1501 - held a doctrine of divine right, in which the shahs were 'shadows of God on earth' and the kings and clerics were complementary pillars of the state. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that the clergy would sometimes enter the political arena. 
Shaykh Ahmad-i-Ahsa'i took a stance rather similar to the Christian approach based on `Render unto Caesar..':  civil government is seen as a necessary evil, with at least the implication that when the Promised One came and the world was put in order government would become unnecessary. Ahsa'i wrote to Fath 'Ali Shah that "all kings and governments enforce their edicts and orders by means of oppression"  but that there was no alternative:
My intervention with the King can have only one of two results: either he will accept it, and thus his rule will be suspended; or he will reject it, and I will be humiliated.
What is interesting here is not only the conclusion, that religion and state must remain separate, but also the assumption that the full recognition of the claims of religion would lead to the abolition of the state.
The Bab set out a two-fold structure within the Babi community, of leaders  who would be responsible for worldly affairs and 'nobles'  who would be appointed, and whose function is not clear.  The first two chapters of the Qayyumu'l-Asma are devoted to the two sources of authority, the state and the 'ulama. The authority of the king is maintained, provided he obeys the ordinance of God: "for in this world you have been mercifully granted dominion ..." (ch 1). In fact the Bab addresses the 'assembly of the rulers of the earth and descendants of rulers', which would appear to foreshadow the assembly of kings and rulers foreseen by Bahá'u'lláh. 
But many of the early Babis understood their new faith in politically revolutionary terms. During the two years in which the Bab was imprisoned in Mah-ku and Chihriq we know that they manufactured and distributed weapons and arranged military training.  When in 1848 the Bab called for them to "proceed towards the land of Kha" [Khurasan], many assumed that they were to take part in the cataclysmic battle prophesied to occur when the Mahdi returned. Mulla Husayn was apparently delegated authority to lead whatever action was intended. At about the same time, however, the Bab sent letters to the Shah and his chief minister in which he denies having any interest in the mundane possession of worldly trifles, while threatening the Shah with divine punishment. In other words he stands over against the state in prophetic denunciation, while recognizing the separation of the religious and political spheres.  This is in marked contrast to the Islamic, and particularly Shi'ih, concept of the totality of prophetic authority. Shoghi Effendi says in this respect that "the sovereignty of the Promised Qa'im was purely a spiritual one, and not a material or political one". 
Bahá'u'lláh also had no interest in worldly power, even as a boy.  He was destined for 'higher things'. In one of his Prayers and Meditations he writes that if God were to establish Him as king and deliver the reins of the entire creation into His hands, His soul would still remain unsatisfied, and the pangs of His heart unstilled, if this earthly sovereignty were to separate him from "the wondrous memories associated with Thy most mighty, most perfect, and most exalted Name."  Having no desire for authority Himself, He delegates authority to the Kings, and, as we shall see, those exercising civil authority in general:
... your Lord hath committed the world and the cities thereof to the care of the kings of the earth, and made them the emblems of His own power, by virtue of the sovereignty He hath chosen to bestow upon them. He hath refused to reserve for Himself any share whatever of this world's dominion. To this He Who is Himself the Eternal Truth will testify. The things He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men's hearts ... In accordance with this principle He told the Pope to abandon his kingdom TO THE KINGS. What is fitting for a spiritual leader is to praise God and exhort the Kings to deal equitably with the people and govern according to the Book. He should not become a king himself. 
The authority which God gives to the kings is a power to act within the law of God, and in a manner fitting the 'essence' of that authority, its reflection of God's ultimate sovereignty. Bahá'u'lláh writes to Sultan 'Abdu'l-'Aziz:
Thou art God's shadow on earth. Strive, therefore, to act in such a manner as befitteth so eminent, so august a station. If thou dost depart from following the things We have caused to descend upon thee and taught thee, thou wilt, assuredly, be derogating from that great and priceless honour. and again
It behoveth every king to be as bountiful as the sun, ... whose benefits are not inherent in itself, but are ordained by Him Who is the Most Powerful, the Almighty. Although the king should be generous and merciful, one of his duties is to punish the wrong-doer:
For is it not your clear duty to restrain the tyranny of the oppressor, and to deal equitably with your subjects, that your high sense of justice may be fully demonstrated to all mankind? God hath committed into your hands the reins of the government of the people, that ye may rule with justice over them, safeguard the rights of the down-trodden, and punish the wrong-doers. 
It is indeed striking how often the passages which refer to the authority which God has given to kings are followed by a declarations concerning reward and punishment. It may be that the need for punishments if society is to be ordered is one of the reasons why we need a civil order which is distinct from the religious order. I haven't found any explicitly statement to this effect ; nothing that would indicate that the governments are to be the manifestations of the name of God 'the avenger'.  I can only report that references to the authority of kings and rulers are often found alongside references to punishment and the restraint of wrong-doers. This duty of executing punishment is also carried out by the kings and rulers collectively:
Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. . . . We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny. This is not the way we would expect a National Spiritual Assembly to behave! The Kings, and the civil government generally, are manifestations of the Power of God,  while the Administrative Order is called on to manifest other attributes. This is perhaps also why the task of establishing a world federal system - the Lesser Peace - is given to the governments, particularly those of the great powers,  and not to the Bahá'ís:
If the rulers and kings of the earth, the symbols of the power of God, exalted be His glory, arise and resolve to dedicate themselves to whatever will promote the highest interests of the whole of humanity, the reign of justice will assuredly be established amongst the children of men, and the effulgence of its light will envelop the whole earth. 
The mirror-image of the authority which is granted to the kings and rulers is the obedience which is expected from the believers:
What mankind needeth in this day is obedience unto them that are in authority, and a faithful adherence to the cord of wisdom. The instruments which are essential to the immediate protection, the security and assurance of the human race have been entrusted to the hands, and lie in the grasp, of the governors of human society. This is the wish of God and His decree.... This duty of obedience is particularly strong as regards a King who acts in support of the Faith.  Such a king will be "numbered with the monarchs of the realms of the Kingdom."  But it is not conditional on the ruler's being a Bahá'í or even acting justly. In an extraordinary passage in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Bahá'u'lláh even praises Mirza Husayn Khan, the Persian ambassador in Constantinople, who had made false accusations against Bahá'u'lláh. Yet Bahá'u'lláh praises him because he was honest and conscientious in discharging his duties to the Persian government, even if this did lead to Bahá'u'lláh's imprisonment in 'Akka. 
Obedience to government is not a principle unique to the Bahá'í Faith. We find it also in the teachings of Christ  and in a passage by Paul which Bahá'u'lláh cites:
In the Epistle to the Romans Saint Paul hath written: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. 
"For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." He saith that the appearance of the kings, and their majesty and power are of God. 
Once again we see that the delegation of God's authority to 'the powers that be' is linked to their duty to judge and inflict punishment. But in Bahá'u'lláh's thought they do not just possess a delegated authority and a role in the order of the world, they also manifest one of the attributes of God and have a metaphysical function. There are even monarchs in 'the realms of the Kingdom'.  Although Bahá'u'lláh speaks sometimes just of Kings and at other times of 'kings and rulers, it is the property of manifesting God's sovereignty which is important, and not the particular form of government which is involved. In one place Bahá'u'lláh names those who manifest authority and power as "the kings, the sovereigns, the presidents, the rulers, the divines and the wise,"  which would seem to cover every conceivable form of state organisation.
This 'higher' doctrine of the state, to the extent that one must obey the authorities even if it means harming the Manifestation (as we saw above), explains the difference between the Christian teaching that church and state, or God and Caesar, have separate spheres and the Bahá'í model of a close harmony between the civil and religious authorities. We are not just to obey the authorities, but also to pray for them  and support them.  Under a democratic form of government this principle means that we are required to vote and take part in 'political' affairs where this can be done without engaging in party political struggles. If the Bahá'ís refused to do so they would in effect be undermining their country's form of government. 'Abdu'l-Bahá writes:
O thou servant of Baha! Thou hast asked regarding the political affairs. In the United States it is necessary that the citizens shall take part in elections. This is a necessary matter and no excuse from it is possible. My object in telling the believers that they should not interfere in the affairs of government is this: That they should not make any trouble and that they should not move against the opinion of the government, but obedience to the laws and the administration of the commonwealth is necessary. Now, as the government of America is a republican form of government, it is necessary that all the citizens shall take part in the elections of officers and take part in the affairs of the republic. 
The authorities in their turn must support religion:
It behoveth the chiefs and rulers of the world, and in particular the Trustees of God's House of Justice, to endeavour to the utmost of their power to safeguard [religion's] position, promote its interests and exalt its station in the eyes of the world. Religion is thus not only the concern of the Houses of Justice, and the 'development of nations' and the 'tranquillity of peoples' are not reserved for the 'kings and rulers of the world.' The world is not strictly divided into separate religious and secular spheres, but the total body of mankind has separate organs which function in different ways because their essential ideas manifest different attributes of God. This means that the civil organs, the 'Kings and rulers' are primarily responsible for the 'immediate protection, the security and assurance of the human race',  while the religious institutions are primarily responsible for the affairs of their own religious communities, for 'speaking forth the praises of the Lord', 'to reform the morals and beautify the conduct of the human race'  and generally for assisting the whole of humanity to fulfil the purposes for which it was created. Neither responsibility is exclusive. Religious teachings give guidance in political matters,  and the support of the religious authorities can make the difference between mere obedience to government and wholehearted support from the population:
Certain laws and principles are necessary and indispensable for Persia. However, it is fitting that these measures should be adopted in conformity with the considered views of His Majesty -- may God aid him through His grace -- and of the learned divines and of the high-ranking rulers. Subject to their approval a place should be fixed where they would meet. There they should hold fast to the cord of consultation and adopt and enforce that which is conducive to the security, prosperity, wealth and tranquillity of the people. For were any measure other than this to be adopted, it could not but result in chaos and commotion. According to the fundamental laws which We have formerly revealed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas and other Tablets, all affairs are committed to the care of just kings and presidents and of the Trustees of the House of Justice. ... In formulating the principles and laws a part hath been devoted to penalties which form an effective instrument for the security and protection of men. However, dread of the penalties maketh people desist only outwardly from committing vile and contemptible deeds, while that which guardeth and restraineth man both outwardly and inwardly hath been and still is the fear of God. These underlying principles which govern the relationship between religious and civil authorities can be applied at all levels, from the local to the international, and could be adapted to suit many kinds of civil government from absolute monarchy to canton democracy. At the international level, however, there is a great deal of detailed prescription in the Bahá'í writings as to the constitution of the civil government and the various organs - the world legislature, executive, and tribunal  - which comprise it.
4. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD GOVERNMENT I would like to look now at some of the details of the functioning of the civil government and the parallel details in the Bahá'í administrative order. The comparison will, on the one hand, show that the 'union' of the two bodies can never become a merger or takeover, and, on the other hand, give us some further clues as to their different natures.
The key elements have been set out by Shoghi Effendi in two well-known passages. The first appears in World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, pages 40 to 41.  and then by a general gathering of governments with the support of all the peoples of the world. The present structure of the United Nations must be approaching the stage of development indicated by the phrase 'international executive', in that with the end of the cold war it is now possible that "the Great Powers should resolve . . . to be fully reconciled among themselves," [ibid] and if they were to do so they would be able to transform the Security Council into "an international executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth." Anno 1994 it is clear that the UN does not yet have that power, and that even if it did the world's problems would not be over. Coercive power applied to states cannot solve problems which are the expression of hatred and prejudices in the hearts of the people. An effective international executive could guarantee the borders, but it could not guarantee the internal peace and order of nations.
To make the transition to a world executive a number of changes are required. First, an international body represents a number of nations, whereas a world body must include every nation. There are a small number of existing states which are not members of the United Nations, and a larger number of nations which do not exist as states, or not as independent states. In a letter of July 7 1976 on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, the secretariat writes:
You have asked whether it is possible to have a World Federation when not all countries have attained their independence. The answer is in the negative. Both 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi likened the emergence of the American Republic and the unification of the "diversified and loosely related elements" of its "divided" community into one national entity, to the unity of the world and the incorporation of its federated units into "one coherent system." Just as the American Constitution does not allow one state to be more autonomous than another, so must the nations of the world enjoy equal status in any form of World Federation. Indeed one of the "candles" of unity anticipated by 'Abdu'l-Bahá is "unity in freedom."Thus the requirements for a world executive must include the adhesion of the remaining nations which are not members, the independence of the remaining colonies and annexed territories, and, if "the nations of the world [must] enjoy equal status", the end of the prerogatives of the permanent members of the Security Council.
What is the difference then between the international executive and the world executive, which, as we have seen, is to be established 'once for all'? They would appear to be different stages of the growth of the one organism. The effective peace-keeping role of the world government is to be established first by the great powers [Gleanings, CXVII p. 249]
The second, and more complete description appears in pages 203 to 204 of the same volume:
This Commonwealth must ... consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system. A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. A world metropolis will act as the nerve center of a world civilization, the locus towards which the unifying forces of life will converge and from which its energizing influences will radiate. A world language will either be invented or chosen from among the existing languages and will be taught in the schools of all the federated nations as an auxiliary to their mother tongue. A world script, a world literature, a uniform and universal system of currency, of weights and measures, will simplify and facilitate intercourse and understanding among the nations and races of mankind. In such a world society, science and religion, the two most potent forces in human life, will be reconciled, will cooperate, and will harmoniously develop. The press will, under such a system, while giving full scope to the expression of the diversified views and convictions of mankind, cease to be mischievously manipulated by vested interests, whether private or public, and will be liberated from the influence of contending governments and peoples. The economic resources of the world will be organized, its markets will be coordinated and developed, and the distribution of its products will be equitably regulated.
One of the striking things about this model is the absence of the Universal House of Justice, although this system's life is sustained "by its allegiance to one common Revelation".  This is therefore not just a more developed United Nations - another attempt to create peace without the power of the Word of God  - but rather the mature form of the World Order  in which religion is the central cohesive force. But this is a description from the point of view of the civil government of the World Order, in which religion appears as one of the auxiliary organs along with the media, literature, science, and the market. One could equally well draw up a description of the Bahá'í commonwealth with the central focus on the Universal House of Justice. In that case the government and apparatus of the Bahá'í state would be one of the peripheral organs, along with the arts, the market, science, and the media. It is a question of focus. In this case the focus is on the internal constitution of the Bahá'í civil government at the global level.
A second interesting feature is the clear differentiation of the three principle organs of legislature, executive, and judiciary. The executive is subordinate to the legislature, and Force - which must include military force but might also include the personnel necessary to carry out sanctions such as the freezing of a nation's assets or the severing of cultural, transportation, trade, or communications links - is in turn subordinate to the executive. The judiciary can act independently, in that it can decide to adjudicate on a case without having to wait for one of the parties to the dispute or one of the other organs of the commonwealth to refer a case to it.  It can also decide on disputes between any of the elements of the system, so that it would function as a constitutional court in the event of a dispute between the executive and the legislature. We can picture the relationship thus:
-------------------------------------------- | legislature | judiciary |--------------------------| | executive | |--------------------------| |force |other | | | | executive | | | depts| | | | | | ________________|________|________|________|
This has some similarities to the differentiation of the rulers and the learned in the Bahá'í Administrative Order, but the 'learned' - the Hands of the Cause, Continental Boards of Counsellors, etc - may facilitate and mediate but certainly cannot adjudicate. Moreover the Legislature of the world government is the counterpart of the international convention in Bahá'í administration: both are general gatherings of representatives of each nation. But the international convention has a purely consultative role, in addition to its function as an electoral college to choose the Universal House of Justice, whereas in the world government the executive carries out decisions made by the general gathering, the legislature or parliament. The power thus flows in opposite directions in the civil and religious orders. This may relate to the fact that the members of the House of Justice are the 'Trustees of the Merciful' and are responsible to Him, whereas the legislators of the world government are the 'trustees of the whole of mankind'. In fact we could redraw the model of the civil government with 'the people(s)' in the top line, since no act or programme by legislature, executive, or judiciary can in the long run be effective unless they succeed in obtaining for it "the sanction of all the human race." 
-------------------------------------------| peoples of the world | -------------------------------------------| | legislature | judiciary |--------------------------| | executive | |--------------------------| |force |other | | | | executive | | | depts| | | | | | ________________|________|________|________|
Shoghi Effendi has said that the members of the legislature should be 'elected by the people in their respective countries and whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments'.  One way of putting this into effect would be to have a two-chamber legislature, with one chamber being the general assemblage of 'rulers and kings of the earth' mentioned by 'Abdu'l-Bahá,  and the second chamber consisting of 'the elected representatives of the people in every land.'  The passage from Shoghi Effendi cited above would seem to point to one set of representatives who are first elected by the people and then confirmed by their governments. This could be achieved by having popularly elected officials, such as ministers of foreign affairs, also serve as the members of the world legislature. But there are other reasons for thinking there might be two chambers in the legislature. First, Bahá'u'lláh, in describing the gathering which is to establish the lesser peace, says that it would be "preferable and more fitting that the highly-honored kings themselves should attend such an assembly."  In the case of countries which are literally monarchies this gives the people no say in choosing their representatives. Where a country is represented by an elected president, prime minister, or minister of foreign affairs the people's voice is at least diminished since these representatives have been elected through the dynamics of a national political system (which will be discussed later), to positions within that system. If the people are given a chance to directly elect representatives to a world parliament they may choose quite different candidates. If the seats in the assembly of nations are allocated to countries rather than individual elected representatives it is possible for 'Kings and Rulers' to attend in person when the matter warrants it, and choose someone to go in their stead on other occasions, which would have practical advantages.
The second reason for considering a two-chamber structure is that the European Union has found it desirable: the Council of Ministers is gradually sharing its powers with the European Parliament. Such experience is not lightly to be disregarded. At the end of the long passage from The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh page 204 with which I began, Shoghi Effendi refers to humanity being "impelled by the unifying forces of life" in the direction of Bahá'u'lláh's vision. Where we see a consistent and constructive force moving in the world we can at least suspect that it may represent the workings of God's greater plan by which the world spontaneously aligns itself with the pattern which God intends for it. In this case the same general principle, of a two chamber legislature representing both a commonwealth of nations and a union of the peoples of the world, is also to be found in proposals for the strengthening of the United Nations which have been put forward by the World Federalists. 
Whatever may be its form - and it may well change over time - it is clear that the underlying principles applicable to the world legislature are quite different to those applying in the Bahá'í Administrative Order. Its counterpart institution, the Universal House of Justice, is responsible not to the people but to God,  and its members represent no national constituency and must NOT be elected directly. 
This legislature is to produce "a single code of international law - the product of the considered judgment of the world's federated representatives ..."  When it reaches maturity it will legislate "in direct conformity with the laws and principles of Bahá'u'lláh"  and in particular in accordance with "the Laws and Ordinances of the Kitab-i-Aqdas."  This limits its legislative power in some respects, since the Aqdas and other Bahá'í writings assign some decisions to the Universal House of Justice. It may choose to limit itself in other respects, since we have seen that the institution of government itself is associated with other elements and interests, such as the media, the market, the arts, and so forth. If public and private communications enterprises are able to reach agreement by contract and treaty - as is done now - to ensure "a mechanism of world inter-communication ... freed from national hindrances and restrictions" then there is no reason why the legislature should act. Such treaties and international agreements, involving the establishment of rules and of institutions to monitor them and adjudicate on disputes, create in effect legislatures and judiciaries specialised in particular areas, and areas in which the central institutions of government will not intervene provided they continue to function satisfactorily.
This dissipation of power is a characteristic of modern societies. In Machiavelli's time 'the prince' could be assumed to truly govern, but in modern societies the government does not govern in any absolute sense. It is one of many organs in the society, and it has to interact positively with the other organs. And gradually the world is learning that one of the essential organs in the body politic is a viable and healthy religious order, without which the culture of trustworthiness required by the market-place and in political life will gradually ebb away to the point that neither can function properly. 
When 'Abdu'l-Bahá wrote to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace at The Hague in 1919 he said:
... although the league of Nations has been brought into existence, yet it is incapable of establishing universal peace. But the Supreme Tribunal which Bahá'u'lláh has described will fulfil this sacred task with the utmost might and power. And His plan is this: that the national assemblies of each country and nation - that is to say parliaments - should elect two or three persons who are the choicest men of that nation, and are well informed concerning international laws and the relations between governments and aware of the essential needs of the world of humanity in this day. The number of these representatives should be in proportion to the number of inhabitants of that country. The election of these souls who are chosen by the national assembly, that is, the parliament, must be confirmed by the upper house, the congress and the cabinet and also by the president or monarch so these person may be the elected ones of all the nation and the government. From among these people the members of the Supreme Tribunal will be elected, and all mankind will thus have a share therein, for every one of these delegates is fully representative of his nation. When the Supreme Tribunal gives a ruling on any international question, either unanimously or by majority rule, there will no longer be any pretext for the plaintiff or ground of objection for the defendant. In case any of the governments or nations, in the execution of the irrefutable decision of the Supreme Tribunal, be negligent or dilatory, the rest of the nations will rise up against it ... This is in some respects similar to the description above of the election of the legislature, and also indicates a construction by which members in one chamber could be seen as both directly elected by the peoples of the world and as representing the kings, rulers, and governments. However there are important differences. First of all, the legislature will enact "a single code of international law," the tribunal will adjudicate on particular cases. The second is that this is a three-stage electoral process: the people elect their parliaments, the parliaments each select two or three delegates in proportion to the size of the population, and these delegates then elect the tribunal. There is no indication of such a system applying to the legislature. Membership of the tribunal is limited to those already selected as delegates, that is, as experts in international law. This is appropriate to a judicial body but would unduly limit the scope of representation of a legislature if the same system were applied there. Once again we see the details of the constitutions of the organs of the World Order correspond to the idea and purpose which animates each individual organ. There would be no purpose in attempting to impose a single electoral formula on every organ. The function of the world tribunal is in some respects similar to the judicial function of the Universal House of Justice, although the laws they administer differ (inter-national law on the one hand, and the laws of the Aqdas and administrative requirements of the Bahá'í community on the other hand). This perhaps explain why the Universal House of Justice is also to be elected in three stages, but there are again significant differences. On page 84 of Bahá'í Administration, Shoghi Effendi writes:
Regarding the method to be adopted for the election of the National Spiritual Assemblies .... In one of His earliest Tablets ... addressed to a friend in Persia, the following is expressly recorded:- "At whatever time all the beloved of God in each country appoint their delegates, and these in turn elect their representatives, and these representatives elect a body, that body shall be regarded as the Supreme Baytu'l-'Adl (Universal House of Justice)." These words clearly indicate that a three-stage election has been provided by 'Abdu'l-Bahá for the formation of the International House of Justice, and as it is explicitly provided in His Will and Testament that the "Secondary House of Justice (i.e., National Assemblies) must elect the members of the Universal One," it is obvious that the members of the National Spiritual Assemblies will have to be indirectly elected by the body of the believers in their respective provinces.
The National Assemblies, which become the international electoral college, have considerably more than "two or three persons" in their membership, are not elected in proportion to the population of their countries, and are not necessarily "well informed concerning international laws and the relations between governments." Neither are the confirmed in their posts by the monarch, president, congress and cabinet - fortunately. The National Assemblies also have executive power in their own countries, whereas the delegates chosen to elect the world tribunal appear to have no function except the election of the world's judges. The inverse is also true: the local delegates chosen by Bahá'ís to elect the National Spiritual Assemblies have no executive power, since the national convention is only an advisory organ, whereas the local representatives chosen in a parliamentary democracy constitute the legislature. Although both the Universal House of Justice and the World Tribunal are elected in a three-stage process, they are thus clearly different in essence.
From these few details of the nature of the legislature and judiciary, we can see that the civil and religious institutions cannot be merged - it is legally impossible. I think we can also see through these details, to intuit the distinct ideas which these particulars manifest.
1. Introduction to the Kitab-i Aqdas, by the Universal House of Justice, p 1.
2. Shoghi Effendi, in God Passes By, cited in Kitab-i Aqdas, p. 12.
3. Hofman, D. A Commentary on the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, revised edn., Oxford, George Ronald 1982, pp 10 - 11. Loni Bramson-Lerche, An analysis of the Bahá'í World Order Model, in Emergence, Dimensions of a New World Order, Charles Lerche, editor. London, BPT 1991 pp 1 - 70. Giuseppe Robiati, Faith and World Economy, a Joint Venture, a Bahá'í perspective. Transl. Julio Savi,. Gruppo Editoriale Insieme, Recco, Italy, 1991. The Covenant and Administration, a compilation, Wilmette BPT, 1969 pp. 44-93. John Ferraby, All things made new, London, BPT, 1987 pp. 262-90.
4. Unpublished paper, 'The relationship of the Laws [of the] Kitab-i Aqdas to the Laws of the Bayan of the Bab'. Simmonds is a PhD student at the Dept. of Religious studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
5. Daniel Easterman (pseud. for Denis MacEoin), New Jerusalems, Reflections on Islam, fundamentalism and the Rushdie affair, London, Harper Collins, 1992, pp. 187-8. See also his 'The Shi'i establishment in Modern Iran', in Denis MacEoin and Ahmed Al-Shah (eds), Islam in the Modern World, London etc. Croom Helm, 1983, where he asserts that the Bahá'í Faith has a "long-term aim of establishing theocratic rule in Iran and throughout the world. From page 189 of New Jerusalems, it would appear that MacEoin's belief is based on a pilgrim's note of Shoghi Effendi's words, which was published in The Bahá'í World, 1934-1936 (p. 199).
6. Colette Gouvion & Philippe Jouvion, The Gardeners of God, Oxford, Oneworld Publications, 1993 p 208. Original French title Les Jardiniers de Dieu, Berg International & Tacor International, 1989.
7. But see Lapidus, I.M., A History Of Islamic Societies, NY, Cambridge University Press, 1988. Lapidus argues that the separation of church and state has been normative in Islam since the Abassid caliphate.
8. See esp. Institutio Principis Christiani, e.g. in Percy S. Allen et al., Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami,, Amsterdam, 1969, 4.I: 150.451, 156.630; or J. LeClerc, (ed), Collected Works of Erasmus, Toronto 1974, 27:220,225.
9. The development of Landkirchen actually preceded the Reformation by many years: the reformation removed some inhibitions to the process. The influence of Erasmus' thought was however felt equally before the Reformation. See J.E. Estes, Christian Magistrate and State Church: the Reforming Career of Johannes Brenz, Toronto, 1982, pp. 28-33.
10. The criticism is not hypothetical. Ficicchia writes: "Die geforderte Treuegenuber dem Staat und die auferlegte Abstinenz von politischer Betatigung durfen nicht vorschnell als pazifistische Garantien gewertet werden. Es handelt sich hier vielmehr um opportunistische Erwagungen, die wohl so lange vertreten werden, wie die im Wachstum befinliche Gemeinschaft ihre erklarten Ziele noch nicht zu verwirklichen imstande ist. In diesem Zusammenhang ist auch die Bahá'ístische Handhabung der taqiya zu erwahnen..." (Francesco Ficicchia, Der Bahá'ísmus, Weltreligion der Zukunft?, Stuttgart, Quell Verklag, 1981 p. 399.)
11. Ridvan message, BE 150.
12. The Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p 85: "Abandon thy kingdom unto the kings ... "
13. J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1971; Thomas Nagel, "Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 16 (1987); B. Ackerman, Social Justice in the Liberal State, New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1980.
14. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p 144.
15. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 66.
16. Note that this is a civil administration, not a secular one. It governs according to the laws of God, and has a particular role in carrying forward an ever-advancing civilization.
17. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 148 - 149.
18. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 147 - 150.
19. The term in the Bahá'í writings is usually 'essence', or 'innermost essence', etc. 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to the 'individuality' of things. Selections, p. 147.
20. May 19, 1994.
21. Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 119. The quotation is from the Qur'an 36:36. In Islamic doctrine all things have their pair, or counterpart, or complement: God alone is One. A Bahá'í version of this doctrine might have to be more complex, to allow for systems in which there is a dynamic interrelation between several individuals, as in a family conceived of as a single relationship rather than a grouping of pairs.
22 Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 22.
23. Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p 398.
24. Unfolding Destiny, p. 76 and Bahá'í Administration, p. 149.
25. The religion which apparently offers the purest theocratic model is Babism, but Shoghi Effendi say that "the sovereignty of the Promised Qa'im was purely a spiritual one, and not a material or political one". Unfolding Destiny, pp. 425-6. See also the Qayyumu'l-Asma, chapter 1, in which the Shah is assured that his authority will be maintained, provided he obeys the ordinance of God: "for in this world you have been mercifully granted dominion ...".
26. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 203.
27. Also called the world of the Kingdom, First Mind, First Will, Primal Will, Word of God, Identity or Self [Persian nafs
28 "This universal mind is divine; it embraces existing realities . . . knows them, understands them, is aware of mysteries, realities, and divine significations . . . This divine intellectual power is the special attribute of the Holy Manifestations." Some Answered Questions, p. 204.
29. "When . . . thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of all things, and the individuality of each, thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy in every created thing, and see the spreading rays of His Names and Attributes throughout all the realm of being ..." Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 41.
30. I am treating the terms as synonymous here. See The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 272.
31. Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 220.
32. Gleanings, p. 218.
33. Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 115, (also in Gleanings, p. 249, Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 165).
34. Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 28. Other passages referring to the desirability of combining monarchy and more broadly-based systems of government can be found in notes to the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p 251: "One of the signs of the maturity of the world is that no one will accept to bear the weight of kingship. Kingship will remain with none willing to bear alone its weight. That day will be the day whereon wisdom will be manifested among mankind." See also Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 93, where the British system, combining monarchy and consultation by the people, is praised. This passage also modifies the statements in the Kitab-i-Aqdas and the Tablet of Ishraqat, which had appeared to give the Houses of Justice exclusive power in 'matters of state', so as to include 'just kings and presidents.' These passages make it clear that Bahá'u'lláh did not envision the government of the 'kings' as a temporary stage pending the establishment of a theocracy.
35. Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, pp. 91-92.
36. The Sunnis recognized reigning monarchs as lawful if they ruled in conformity with Islamic norms, based on the Quranic text: "Obey God, His Prophet, and those among you who have authority."
37. In Bahá'u'lláh's time tension focussed on the dependence of the Shah on foreign support. In 1891 Mohammad Hasan Shirazi, one of the first clerics to be generally recognized as a marja-i taqlid, issued a decree against the government for selling the tobacco concession to a British entrepreneur.
38. Matt. 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26.
39. Amanat, Resurrection and Renewal, p. 64.
40. Translated in Algar, Religion and State, p. 67.
43. Amanat, Resurrection and Renewal, pp. 189-90.
44. The situation is somewhat confused because he goes on to speak of this recognition as accorded to the Shah of Iran, who is to use his soul and sword to "subdue the countries' and 'purify the Sacred Land from the people of denial.' The 'Sacred Land' may refer to a Babi kingdom, but it might also be used in its conventional sense as the region around Kufa and Karbila in Iraq, containing shrines especially sacred to the Shi'is. If so, the Shah was being called on to support a revolt by the Shi'is against the Ottomans, who had bloodily put down such a rebellion in 1842.
45. Amanat, Resurrection and Renewal, p. 350.
46. Amanat, Resurrection and Renewal, p. 383. The Bab's stance is similar to the prophetic role as it was understood in the Hebrew tradition.
47. Unfolding Destiny, pp. 425-6.
48. Lawh-i Ra'is, see Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, vol 3, p. 36.
49. Prayers and Meditations, p. 93.
50. Gleanings, p. 304. See also Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 13; Gleanings, p. 206.
51. Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 85.
52. Gleanings, p. 237; Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 52.
53. Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 51.
54. Gleanings, p. 247; Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 11.
55. Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 75; Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 89-90; Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 22.
56. Gleanings, p. 249; Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 115; Gleanings, p. 254.
57. See below. In the fifth Bisharat they are called the "exponents of the power of God" (Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 22).
58. Gleanings, p. 249, Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 115.
59. Gleanings, pp. 218-219; Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 164.
60. Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 13-14, Gleanings, p. 207.
61. Gleanings, p. 207, Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 14, Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 22.
62. Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 29-30, see also Gleanings, p. 212.
63. Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, pp. 69-70. There is a parallel in Babi history, where Sam Khan was unwilling to execute the Bab but was told by Him to obey his orders.
64. Matt 22: 15-22, Mark 12: 13-17, Luke 20: 20-26.
65. Romans 13: 1-3.
66. Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, pp. 91-92.
67. Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 30. See also note 3 above.
68. Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 63.
69. Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 220, Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 375.
70. Gleanings, pp. 94-95, Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 87.
71. Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Bahá Abbas, vol 2, pp. 342-343.
72. Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 130, see also pp. 63-64.
73. Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 13-14; Gleanings, p. 207.
74. A Traveller's Narrative, p. 66.
75. Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 151.
76. Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 92-93. Note that the religious authorities referred to do not have to be Bahá'í (see also Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 63-64, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, pp. 90-92 and 137). What is important is the harmony of these two fundamental forces in society.
77. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 203.
78. This passage will not be dealt with here, because it appears to be both an earlier formulation of the Guardian, and to relate to an earlier period in history. The Guardian's secretary wrote: "As regards the International Executive referred to by the Guardian in his "Goal of a New World Order" (World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 40), it should be noted that this statement refers by no means to the Bahá'í Commonwealth of the future, but simply to that world government which will herald the advent and lead to the final establishment of the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh. The formation of this International Executive, which corresponds to the executive head or board in present-day national governments, is but a step leading to the Bahá'í world government of the future ..." (March 17, 1934)
79. i.e., it is a civil government but not a secular government, and the world order is theo-centric but evidently not theocratic in the sense we have understood that term in the past.
80. For the insufficiency of such attempts see Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, pp. 295-6.
81. Earlier in the same passage (p. 202) Shoghi Effendi wrote that these institutions are to be established "once for all." Their establishment thus marks the formal maturity of the World Order system in the sense that they cannot later be abolished or replaced by other institutions, at least during the Bahá'í dispensation, but this does not exclude further evolution by the addition of extra institutions or the better functioning of these institutions.
82. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 41.
83. 'Abdu'l-Bahá, cited in World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 192.
84. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 41.
85. 'Abdu'l-Bahá, cited in World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 192.
86. Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 67.
87. Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 31.
88. Dieter Heinrich, The Case for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, World Federalist Movement, Amsterdam and New York, 1992.
89. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 153.
90. On page 84 of Bahá'í Administration, Shoghi Effendi writes: "Regarding the method to be adopted for the election of the National Spiritual Assemblies .... In one of His earliest Tablets ... addressed to a friend in Persia, the following is expressly recorded:- "At whatever time all the beloved of God in each country appoint their delegates, and these in turn elect their representatives, and these representatives elect a body, that body shall be regarded as the Supreme Baytu'l-'Adl (Universal House of Justice)." These words clearly indicate that a three-stage election has been provided by 'Abdu'l-Bahá for the formation of the International House of Justice . . ." 91. See also Bahá'í Administration, p. 39.
92. World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 41.
93. The Advent of Divine Justice, p.12.
94. Messages to the Bahá'í World 1950-1957, p. 155.
94. It could also be very beneficial, for both the Bahá'í community and the world, if Bahá'ís could be found who would engage in political science and study the processes at work and the relevant Bahá'í teachings in depth. "This being a more intellectual and philosophical approach to the problem of world political crisis, there is no objection if you wish to try such a method, which immediately carries you from the field of practical politics to that of political theory." (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, dated March 2 1934)
95. Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 306.