Definition of Good standing
Sharon Bakula
Friends,
After a brief absence, I've just been catching up on the last week and a
half of posts on this list, and would like to comment on the topic of the
meaning of being a Baha'i in "good standing." So far, none of the posts
I've seen has mentioned that the term "good standing" in a Baha'i context
refers to a person's *administrative status*, not their *spiritual condition*.
To say that someone is a "Baha'i in good standing" simply means that the
individual is not currently in a state of having his/her administrative
rights (voting in Baha'i elections, giving to the Fund, etc.) removed. I've
only seen this term used in an administrative context, particularly in
relation to voting in Baha'i elections. For example, in voting for the
members of a Local Spiritual Assembly, delegates to the National Convention,
etc., we are told that only those who are Baha'is in "good standing" are
eligible.
Since all of us are at varying levels of spiritual development, and none of
us has a perfect track record in obeying every single Baha'i law, to be a
Baha'i in "good standing" in no way implies that we have never broken one.
Also, not all violations of Baha'i law are subject to these administrative
sanctions. Some laws are purely between the individual and God, and are not
matters for administrative action. Examples of such laws would be keeping
the fast and saying the obligatory prayers. There is a categorized list of
laws (which ones are subject to administrative action and which are not) in
_Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities_; I don't have it handy but can
post it later if there is interest.
And even in cases regarding laws that may be subject to administrative
action, the Guardian has indicated that deprivation of administrative rights
is a step that should be reserved for extreme cases only. To the N.S.A. of
the Baha'is of India, he wrote:
"...those who conspicuously disgrace the Faith or refuse to abide by its
laws can be deprived, as a punishment, of their voting rights; this in
itself is a severe action, and he therefore always urges all National
Assemblies (who can take such action) to first warn and repeatedly warn the
evil-doer before taking the step of depriving him of his voting rights. He
feels your Assembly must act with the greatest wisdom in such matters, and
only impose this sanction if a believer is seriously injuring the Faith in
the eyes of the public through his conduct or flagrantly breaching the laws
of God. If such a sanction were lightly used the friends would come to
attach no importance to it, or to feel the N.S.A. used it every time they
got angry with some individual's disobedience to them." (_Dawn of a New
Day_, p. 128-129)
To take the example of homosexuality, if a homosexual became a Baha'i and
continued to openly practice homosexual activities, it is conceivable that
this could *eventually* result in the person's administrative rights being
removed, in which case the individual would no longer be a Baha'i in "good
standing" from an administrative standpoint. That is what I presume the
person who originally used this term in reference to homosexuals coming into
the Faith had in mind.
A person who never kept the Fast or who never said a prayer would also be
breaking Baha'i law, and his or her own spiritual development would no doubt
be impeded, but this would not by itself prevent him or her from being a
Baha'i in "good standing" in an administrative sense. On the other hand,
*nobody* can know the condition of another's soul, and even institutions
cannot pronounce judgement in this regard.
In short, being a Baha'i in "good standing" is a purely administrative
designation, not a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" on one's spiritual
condition--or vice versa, for that matter. ;)
I hope this clarifies the issue of "good standing."
Best wishes,
Sharon Bakula
Ja...@vossough.softnet.co.uk
Before I express my opinion I would like to say that, in principle, I accept
the explanation offered by Sharon Bakula, however...
I believe the Baha'i faith does not allow for compartmentalisation of people
specially based on their depth of belief. Hence, I find the <relative>
terminology of "Baha'is of good standing" to be totally inconsistent with the
principles of Baha'i faith. If this terminology was used by Baha'u'llah,
'Abdu'l-Baha, Guardian or the Universal House of Justice, then I will
happily accept it (and also embark on "independent investigation of truth"
in order to understand it), else it does not exist!
I accept that those who have, for whatever reason, lost their voting rights
or have been Covenant breakers need to be distinguished for
administrative reasons, and for such cases it is better to be explicit. In all
other cases everyone is equal, purely because no one is in a position to
judge otherwise and no yardstick exists for such measurements - there are
several examples at both extremes to demonstrate this point.
--
Javid Vossough
Nuneaton, England
Ja...@Vossough.softnet.co.uk
W. DeMoville
At 08:35 PM 1/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I believe the Baha'i faith does not allow for compartmentalisation of people
>specially based on their depth of belief. Hence, I find the <relative>
>terminology of "Baha'is of good standing" to be totally inconsistent with the
>principles of Baha'i faith. If this terminology was used by Baha'u'llah,
>'Abdu'l-Baha, Guardian or the Universal House of Justice, then I will
>happily accept it (and also embark on "independent investigation of truth"
>in order to understand it), else it does not exist!
---------------
Using Ian Vink's software and searching the writings of Shoghi Effendi for
ther term "in good standing," produced three hits. Each of these were in
letters written on behalf of the Guardian. This terminology always applied
to the individual's administrative standing within the Baha'i Community.
However, it should not surprise us to learn that the Baha'i Faith does have
"ranks" and that in some cases these ranks may even be an indication of the
depth of belief of the individual. For example, the Guardian referred to
the "rank" of Hand of the Cause. He also referred to the rank of "Apostles
of Baha'u'llah" and "Knights of Baha'u'llah."
It is not our job to judge others; on the other hand, this does not mean
that we will not be judged. Each of us has the capacity, to varying
degrees, to clean the dross from our "mirrors" so that we may reflect the
divine attributes; to the extent that we are good housekeepers in
relationship to our capacities, we will mirror those attributes and be
judged accordingly.
Warm wishes to all,
Wig
Sharon Bakula
At 08:35 PM 1/3/97 -0700, Javid Vossbaugh wrote:
>Before I express my opinion I would like to say that, in principle, I accept
>the explanation offered by Sharon Bakula, however...
>
>specially based on their depth of belief. Hence, I find the <relative>
>terminology of "Baha'is of good standing" to be totally inconsistent with the
>principles of Baha'i faith. If this terminology was used by Baha'u'llah,
>'Abdu'l-Baha, Guardian or the Universal House of Justice, then I will
>happily accept it (and also embark on "independent investigation of truth"
>in order to understand it), else it does not exist!
>
>or have been Covenant breakers need to be distinguished for
>administrative reasons, and for such cases it is better to be explicit. In
all
>other cases everyone is equal, purely because no one is in a position to
>judge otherwise and no yardstick exists for such measurements - there are
>several examples at both extremes to demonstrate this point.
>
a message of the Guardian to the NSA of the Baha'is of the British Isles,
dated 29 April 1948, (from _Unfolding Destiny_, p. 213):
"Regarding the matter of believers who have been deprived of their voting
rights: just as no one should ever be deprived of his voting right lightly,
it should likewise be realised that to be deprived of it is a grave matter,
and involves heavy penalties
spiritually. People who have been so deprived should not be permitted to
attend any meetings involving the administration of the Cause, such as an
election or a 19 Day Feast. They can attend the 9 Holy Days, however; they
should not be married by Baha'i law, no money should be accepted from them,
they should not be given credentials (which imply a member of the community
in good standing) nor should they be used officially
as teachers or speakers."
As I said in my previous post, "good standing" is *merely* an administrative
designation and making decisions regarding any believer's administrative
rights is *purely* the concern of institutions. I totally agree that the
job of individuals is to love and accept each other, PERIOD. I provided the
definition in the interest of clarity, only because reading the posts under
this subject thread lead me to believe there was some confusion about the
meaning of the term.
There are very few times when an individual believer would need to know
another's administrative status, and it is *only* relevant in relation to
administrative matters. (For example, in voting, one needs to know which
people are eligible to be elected, and this information is usually supplied
by way of a list of all Baha'is in good standing in the area in question.)
As *individuals*, we absolutely should *not* be in the business of passing
judgment on each other, but *institutions* have a different set of
responsibilities, some of which are less pleasant than others. The Guardian
himself provided the mechanism of deprivation of administrative rights,
describing it as a "punishment" and a "severe action" and provided guidance
for those institutions that might have the onerous duty of making decisions
of this nature. I don't believe he intended it as a mechanism for
"compartmentalizing" Baha'is and he certainly never intended it to be based
on anyone's "depth of belief". If this is the impression given by my post,
I apologize. It is certainly not what I meant.
Faithfully,
Sharon Bakula