Memorandum
To: The Universal House of Justice
Date: 11 June 1991
From: Research Department
Arius
In his letter dated 7 January 1990 to the Research Department, Mr. ... requests clarification of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá’s assessment of Arius, the early Christian theologian. Mr. ... cites a Tablet of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá to Louise R. Waite published in “Star of the West” vol. 10, no. 5 (5 June 1919), p.96, in which He refers to the career of Arius as an illustration of the inevitable failure of Covenant-Breakers:
“Consider thou, at the time of Christ and after Him, how many childish attempts were made by different persons! What claims they have advanced and what a multitude have they gathered around themselves! Even Arius attracted to himself a million and a half followers and strove and endeavored to sow the seeds of sedition in the Cause of Christ. But eventually the sea of Christ surged and cast out all the gathering froth and nothing was left behind save everlasting malediction.”
Mr. ... asks why ‘Abdu’l-Baha would condemn Arius as a leader of sedition and a cause of disunity when his view of the relationship between the Manifestation and God, as Mr. ... understands it, is “remarkably similar to both the teachings of Muhammad as well as the Central Figures of the Baha’i Faith.” Mr. ... notes that this question is of particular importance insofar as the theological agreement between Arius and the Baha’i Faith could be a means of attracting Christians to the Baha’i teachings. However, he is concerned that Christians might read the Tablet to Louise Waite, see that ‘Abdu’l-Baha condemns Arius, draw the conclusion that the Baha’is reject Arian theology, and therefore criticize the Baha’is for being self-contradictory with regard to the relationship between the Manifestation and God. We provide the following.
As is pointed out by Mr. Keven Brown in his paper, “The Creed of Arius vs the Creed of Athansius”, “The problem of reading Arius’ position accurately is compounded by the fact that only three authentic letters from him remain as well as fragments cited in the works of other writers. His most important theological work, the “Thalia”, has never been retrieved whole, and that we possess of it are those pieces that Athanasius cites in his works in order to refute Arius.”
Arius is referred to in several of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Tablets which are as yet unpublished and untranslated. These references confirm the assessment of Arius given in the Tablet published in the “Star of the West”. One of these Tablets refers to the very large following Arius attracted and of the influence he exerted even in the Imperial household, and continues “But since he deviated from the Covenant of Christ, at the end he faded away and perished.”
It is clear that the main subject of these Tablets is not Arius himself, nor his doctrinal views, but the question of Covenant-breaking dissension, and the importance of firmness in the Covenant in the Baha’i community. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s references to the history of Christianity and to Arius seem merely to be given as examples to Western believers of what happened in the past and of how the Covenant of Christ preserved His Faith, even in the face of such a major challenge as that presented by Arius.
The questions posed by Mr. ... raise, however, a number of very interesting issues, such as the following:
- Is there a significant difference between the rise and fall of Arianism and that of other early heresies?
- What relationship does this question have to major later splits in Christendom such as that between Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or that precipitated by the Protestant Reformation?
- Why does `Abdu’l-Baha repeatedly single out Arius as an example? How do the teachings of Arius compare to those of the Baha’i Faith?
It is clear from many passages in the Baha’i Writings that the Covenant of Baha’u’llah is unique in its strength and power and in the degree to which it was formally and explicitly established in the body of the Sacred Writings themselves. It is also clear, however, that there were Covenants of succession in earlier Dispensations, but these were successfully violated by virtue of the fact that there were no clear documentary evidence that could be adduced by the appointed Centre to defeat the attacks of its opponents. In relation to the Covenant of Jesus Christ, ‘Abdu’l-Baha wrote in one of His Tablets:
"This Covenant was based on the words addressed to Peter, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”. And though these words attributed to Christ are based only on the report of some of His disciples, nevertheless Christian unity was preserved for eight hundred years through this implicit Covenant." (from a previously untranslated Tablet)
In the seventh century the Christian Dispensation was brought to an end by the Revelation of Muhammad, and it was only after that time that the great schism between the Eastern and Western Christendom took place, precipitating a division far more serious and enduring than had been caused by any of the many splinter groups and heresies which arose up during the preceding centuries, but involving less radical questions of doctrine. In the light of history one can see how the most serious of the early threats to Christian unity was the Arian controversy.
The point of the example adduced by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, therefore, would seem to be to show how, in spite of its inexplicit formulation, and in spite of the fact that in the early centuries there were many who put forward their own ideas about the doctrine of the Faith, causing disputes and giving birth to short-lived heretical groups, the Covenant of Jesus was able to maintain the essential unity of Christianity until the end of the Dispensation, when its inherent weaknesses became apparent. Thus we have the following comment on the Reformation made in a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer on 28 December 1936:
“What contribution the Reformation did really make was to seriously challenge, and partly undermine, the edifice which the Fathers of the Church had themselves reared, and to discard and demonstrate the purely human origin of the elaborate doctrines, ceremonies and institutions which they had devised. The Reformation was a right challenge to the man-made organization of the Church, and as such was a step in advance. In its origins, it was a reflection of the new spirit which Islam had released, and a God-sent punishment to those who had refused to embrace its truth.”
As to the doctrines of Arianism, it is difficult at this time and in light of the paucity of documents remaining, to ascertain exactly what Arius taught, but in “The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church” we find the following description:
ARIANISM. The principle heresy which denied the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, so called after its author, *Arius (q.v.)
Arianism maintained that the Son of God was not eternal but created by the Father from nothing as an instrument for the creation of the World; and that therefore He was not God by nature, but a changeable creature, His dignity as Son of God having been bestowed on Him by the Father on account of His foreseen abiding righteousness.
In light of the Baha’i teachings about the nature of the Manifestation of God, of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s elucidation of the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Guardian’s statement that:
"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended...." (Shoghi Effendi, “The Promised Day is Come” (Wilmette: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1980), p.109)
it would be difficult to maintain that the teaching of Arius is closer to that of the Baha’i Revelation than that of the Church.
However that may be, the principle theme of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s reference is not the nature of the teachings of Arius but the damage caused by his attempt to raise a following which divided the Church in defiance of the Covenant of Christ, and the ability of that Covenant to maintain the essential unity of the Church even in the face of so formidable an opponent.
No doubt in the future Baha’i scholars will be able to examine this question in greater detail and draw many illuminating conclusions.
(Baha’i Library Online)