As usual we silently waited for Him to address us, which He soon did: "Well, my daughter", the Master commenced, "how do you like Shoghi Effendi, my future Elisha?" (Old Testament, 2 Kings, 2nd chapter, verse 13). "Master, if I may speak frankly, then I have to say that in his boyish face are the dark eyes of a sufferer, of one who will suffer a lot!"
Thoughtfully the Master looked beyond us into a far distance, only after a considerable time did His glance come back to us, and He said: "My grandson does not have the eyes of a pioneer, of a fighter, of a victor, but in his eyes, in his glances there is an abyss (=depth) of fidelity, endurance and conscientiousness.
… Long pause! - Then 'Abbas Effendi - 'Abdu'l-Baha rose and said in a firm voice in a solemn tone: "I am not giving my Elisha to the British to educate, I dedicate and give him to the All-Highest. God's eyes will keep watch over my child in Oxford also. - Insha'allah."
Guardianship: a charge of fidelity and defined authority
Shoghi Effendi and the Guardianship
Editorial introduction
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, looking at a grandson of eleven or twelve, is remembered calling him His future Elisha and seeing in his eyes not a conqueror but an abyss of fidelity, endurance and conscientiousness. That office was then set down in writing. The Will and Testament names Shoghi Effendi the Guardian of the Cause of God and the expounder of its words, and places him together with the Universal House of Justice under the unerring guidance promised to both. From that follows a set of careful boundaries: the Guardian interprets, the House of Justice legislates, and neither invades the other’s sphere; his infallibility belongs to his function, and his personal letters are counsel rather than pronouncements. When his ministry ended without a successor, the House of Justice warned against two opposite errors, treating the Guardianship as a dead letter and straining the clear texts to produce a Guardian. The mantle that fell from Elijah to Elisha offers an image of continuity and calling, though not of an authority the Bahá’í texts define for themselves [1]. The journey continues toward authoritative interpretation and its limits, the twin pillars of this Order, and the Hands of the Cause with their own charge of protection.
Selected passages
After my ascension into the land of transcendent reality (Malakut-i-Allah), it would first of all be my eldest grandson who would be considered as custodian and caretaker of the Holy Tombs. … Verily, as long as there will be a direct or indirect male descendant of the Blessed Perfection Baha'u'llah, the two Tombs, and in the future mine also, will be in the best of hands!
But if the Lord God should let the blessed line of our descendants be broken one day, the International House of Justice, together with the local one, will appoint a suitable guardian, caretaker, custodian and steward for the three places of pilgrimage, and the roses of Shiraz and the lilies of Tihran will for ever bloom and exhale their fragrance in memory of the Forerunner, the Consummator and the Disseminator of the Baha'i Teachings, as living Manifestations of the beauty and glory of God.
After My return to God, the Lord, for "all springs from God and all returns to God", the blessed Master of the Mystery of God (Aqa, Sirrullah, 'Abbas Effendi, 'Abdu'l-Baha) will take on and continue the guardianship of the souls, and when the day dawns when also this Most Great Branch on the Tree of Sinai ('Abdu'l-Baha - Tree of Sinai=Baha'u'llah) will have entered into the depths of the Primal Will (God), He, the one blessed many times ('Abdu'l-Baha), will have decided beforehand - in a last Tablet (alvah = testamentary Tablet) - who, from among the members of the Baytu'l-'Adl should take on the guardianship of the souls.
A special letter is enclosed for the maid-servant of God, Mrs..... Forward it. As to letters for Chicago and its vicinity, if God so willeth (Inshallah), they will be sent through the House of Spirituality. As to the copying of the Tablets in a book for the House of Spirituality, this dependeth upon the consent of the receivers of the Tablets. If the owners of the Tablets consent, copies should be kept and collected in the House of Spirituality and it will be acceptable. Nevertheless, this should be with perfect consent of the receivers.
Further quotations · supplied wording and references
In His Will and Testament 'Abdu'l-Baha conferred the mantle of Guardian of the Cause and infallible Interpreter of its teachings upon His eldest grandson, Shoghi Effendi, and confirmed the authority and guarantee of divine guidance decreed by Baha'u'llah for the Universal House of Justice on all matters "which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book". The Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice can thus be seen to be, in the words of Shoghi Effendi, the "Twin Successors" of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha. They are the supreme institutions of the Administrative Order which was founded and anticipated in the Kitab-i-Aqdas and elaborated by 'Abdu'l-Baha in His Will.
From these statements it is made indubitably clear and evident that the Guardian of the Faith has been made the Interpreter of the Word and that the Universal House of Justice has been invested with the function of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in the teachings. … Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted authority with which both have been divinely invested.
Each exercises, within the limitations imposed upon it, its powers, its authority, its rights and prerogatives. These are neither contradictory, nor detract in the slightest degree from the position which each of these institutions occupies.
It must be also clearly understood by every believer that the institution of Guardianship does not under any circumstances abrogate, or even in the slightest degree detract from, the powers granted to the Universal House of Justice by Baha'u'llah in the "Kitabu'l-Aqdas," and repeatedly and solemnly confirmed by 'Abdu'l-Baha in His Will. … It enhances the prestige of that exalted assembly, stabilizes its supreme position, safeguards its unity, assures the continuity of its labors, without presuming in the slightest to infringe upon the inviolability of its clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction.
Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the permanent head of so august a body he can never, even temporarily, assume the right of exclusive legislation. He cannot override the decision of the majority of his fellow-members, but is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them of any enactment he conscientiously believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances.
Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Baha'u'llah would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as 'Abdu'l-Baha has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God.... Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn. Severed from the no less essential institution of the Universal House of Justice this same System of the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha would be paralyzed in its action and would be powerless to fill in those gaps which the Author of the Kitab-i-Aqdas has deliberately left in the body of His legislative and administrative ordinances.
Shoghi Effendi was asked several times during his ministry to define the sphere of his operation and his infallibility. The replies he gave and which were written on his behalf are most illuminating. He explains that he is not an infallible authority on subjects such as economics and science, nor does he go into technical matters since his infallibility is confined to 'matters which are related strictly to the Cause'. He further points out that 'he is not, like the Prophet, omniscient at will', that his 'infallibility covers interpretation of the Revealed Word and its application', and that he is also 'infallible in the protection of the Faith'.
No Guardian of the Faith, I feel it my solemn duty to place on record, can ever claim to be the perfect exemplar of the teachings of Baha'u'llah or the stainless mirror that reflects His light.
Question: Does infallibility mean perfection? Answer: No.
It is not for individual believers to limit the sphere of the Guardian's authority, or to judge when they have to obey the Guardian and when they are free to reject his judgment. Such an attitude would evidently lead to confusion and to schism. The Guardian being the appointed interpreter of the Teachings, it is his responsibility to state what matters which, affecting the interests of the Faith, demand on the part of the believers, complete and unqualified obedience to his instructions.
There are only two institutions which are infallible, one is the Guardianship, the other the International House of Justice. What the Master desired to protect the friends against was continual bickering and opinionatedness.
He feels that there must have been some misapprehension on your part of his statements regarding future Guardians: they cannot "abrogate" the interpretations of former Guardians, as this would imply not only a lack of guidance but mistakes in making them; however they can elaborate and elucidate former interpretations, and can certainly abrogate some former ruling laid down as a temporary necessity by a former Guardian.
Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.
The exact status which Shoghi Effendi has intended the friends to give to those communications he sends to individual believers is explained in the following statement written through his secretary to the National Assembly on November 16, 1932: "As regards Shoghi Effendi's letters to the individual Baha'is, he is always very careful not to contradict himself. He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the Baha'i News. Only letters with special significance should be published there."
Concerning the different translations of the Words. It is surely the original text that should never be changed. The translations will continue to vary as more and better translations are made. Shoghi Effendi does not consider even his own translations as final, how much more translations made in the early days of the Cause in the West when no competent translators existed.
This is one more attempt to introduce to the West, in language however inadequate, this book of unsurpassed pre-eminence among the writings of the Author of the Baha'i Revelation. The hope is that it may assist other in their efforts to approach what must always be regarded as the unattainable goal -- a befitting rendering of Baha'u'llah's matchless utterance.
In connection with the fundamental questions of general policy referred to in your letter, I feel that the basic principles, laid down but briefly stated in my past letters, which must guide the administration of the affairs of the Baha'i Movement pending the definite formation of the first authoritative Universal House of Justice, must be further affirmed, elucidated, and explained in greater detail, for the complete knowledge of all the individual members of the vast and growing community of the believers in America.
After prayerful and careful study of the Holy Texts bearing upon the question of the appointment of the successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause of God, and after prolonged consideration of the views of the Hands of the Cause of God residing in the Holy Land, the Universal House of Justice finds that there is no way to appoint or to legislate to make it possible to appoint a second Guardian to succeed Shoghi Effendi.
Although, as is seen, the ending of the line of Aghsan at some stage was provided for, we must never underestimate the grievous loss that the Faith has suffered. God's purpose for mankind remains unchanged, however, and the mighty Covenant of Baha'u'llah remains impregnable.
The Guardianship does not lose its significance nor position in the Order of Baha'u'llah merely because there is no living Guardian. We must guard against two extremes: one is to argue that because there is no Guardian all that was written about the Guardianship and its position in the Baha'i World Order is a dead letter and was unimportant; the other is to be so overwhelmed by the significance of the Guardianship as to underestimate the strength of the Covenant, or to be tempted to compromise with the clear texts in order to find somehow, in some way, a Guardian.
The fact that the Guardian has the authority to define the sphere of the legislative action of the Universal House of Justice does not carry with it the corollary that without such guidance the Universal House of Justice might stray beyond the limits of its proper authority; such a deduction would conflict with all the other texts referring to its infallibility, and specifically with the Guardian's own clear assertion that the Universal House of Justice never can or will infringe on the sacred and prescribed domain of the Guardianship.
It should be understood by the friends that before legislating upon any matter the Universal House of Justice studies carefully and exhaustively both the Sacred Texts and the Writings of Shoghi Effendi on the subject. The interpretations written by the beloved Guardian cover a vast range of subjects and are equally as binding as the Text itself.
Shoghi Effendi has given categorical assurances that neither the Guardian nor the Universal House of Justice "can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other." Therefore, the friends can be sure that the Universal House of Justice will not engage in interpreting the Holy Writings....
There being no successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause of God, the Universal House of Justice is the Head of the Faith and its supreme institution, to which all must turn, and on it rests the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the unity and progress of the Cause of God.
The time is indeed propitious for the establishment of the International Teaching Centre, a development which, at one and the same time, brings to fruition the work of the Hands of the Cause residing in the Holy Land and provides for its extension into the future, links the institution of the Boards of Counsellors even more intimately with that of the Hands of the Cause of God, and powerfully reinforces the discharge of the rapidly growing responsibilities of the Universal House of Justice. … All the Hands of the Cause of God will be members of the International Teaching Centre.
Continue exploring
- Hands of the Cause
- Twin pillars; interpretation and legislation
Explore the distinct responsibilities of interpretation and legislation.
- importance of authoritative interpretation
For thought and discussion
Questions to carry forward
- How do the recollections, testamentary provisions, and later explanatory letters contribute differently to understanding the Guardianship?
- Why do the distinctions between interpretation and legislation matter for the relationships described here?
- What does a defined sphere of infallibility imply, and how is it distinguished from omniscience or perfect exemplarity?
- How do the later letters address the relationship between an institution’s enduring significance and the absence of a living officeholder?
- What does the narrative of Elijah and Elisha illuminate about fidelity and succession, and where does that analogy reach its limits?
- How might these readings shape careful use of personal correspondence, translations, and reported conversations?