A Review of Sen McGlinn's Article on TheocracySusan Stiles ManeckSen McGlinn's article "Theocratic Assumptions in Bah' Literature" argues that,
� �
contrary to the belief commonly held by Bah's and reflected in secondary
� �
literature to the effect that our Teachings support the eventual establishment ofa theocratic government, a close examination of the scriptures would lend supportfor the Western notion of a separation of church and state. The article singlesout for criticism the writings of certain Bah' authors such as John Hatcher and
� �
Loni Bramson but for the most part Mr. McGlinn sets up what he himself calls a'straw man' to argue the normative theocratic position which he then proceeds tocritique.In McGlinn's survey of the Bah' scriptures he includes the Writings of
� �
Bah'u'llh such as the passages wherein He makes the distinction between the
� �
spiritual and worldly sovereignty and enjoins obedience to government yet heleaves out key passages wherein Bah'u'llh states that the "All matters of State
� �
should be referred to the House of Justice."McGlinn's discussion of 'Abdu'l-Bah's Writings focuses on the Risaliy-i
�
Siyasiyyah, The Secret of Divine Civilization and A Traveler's Narrative, textswhere 'Abdu'l-Bah decries 'ulama interference in matters of state as evidence
�
that 'Abdu'l-Bah supported the separation of church and state. He omits in
�
Abdu'l-Bah's explicit references to the Universal House of Justice enacting
�
secular law [qanun] and civil law [akham-i madaniyyih.]2In his discussion of Shoghi Effendi's writings, McGlinn begins by pointing out theinstances where the Guardian applauded the growth of secularization in the MiddleEast apparently believing this had more to do with the Guardian's supposed beliefin separate spheres of religion and state rather than because it decreased thepower of a clergy which was persecuting the Bah' community. He also points out a
� �
key passage where the Guardian states that Bah's in establishing their
� �
administrative institutions have no intention of violating the constitution of anygovernment, much less of taking it over.3 McGlinn goes so far as to argue thatShoghi Effendi's selection of scriptures to translate in the years 1932-1939 wereaimed at teaching the Bah's that their religious institutions were not never to
� �
assume the reins of temporal government. If so it seems rather strange that hewould have had his secretaries write letters such as these:Eventually, however, as you have rightly conceived it, the Movement will, as soonas it is fully developed and recognized, embrace both religious and politicalissues. In fact Bah'u'llh clearly states that affairs of state as well as
� �
religious questions are to be referred to the House of Justice into which theAssemblies of the Bah's will eventually evolve.4
� �
And:The Bah's will be called upon to assume the reins of government when they will
� �
come to constitute the majority of the population in a given country, and eventhen their participation in political affairs is bound to be limited in scopeunless they obtain a similar majority in some other countries as well.5In his treatment of The World Order of Bah'u'llh, McGlinn argues that when
� �
Shoghi Effendi predicted the establishment of a Bah' State he was merely
� �
speaking of the time when the Bah' Faith would become the state religions much
� �
as is the case in countries such as England. It did not mean that Bah'
� �
Institutions would take over any of the functions of government. McGlinn evensuggests that Bah'u'llh's own praise for that government included praise for
� �
their church/state relations. Given the fact that Bah' u'llah only praises the
�
British for combining kingship and consultation, this seems highly speculative.McGlinn insists that when Shoghi Effendi used the term Bah' Commonwealth he
� �
meant nothing more than the Bah' religious community [`umm]. McGlinn points out
� � �
that Edward Gibbon used the term 'Christian Commonwealth' to refer to the
Leave a Comment