# Houses as Perfect as Is Possible

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-20 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Duane L. Herrmann, Houses as Perfect as Is Possible, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Houses as Perfect as Is Possible
> 
> © 1994, Duane L. Herrmann
> 
> World Order, Fall 1994
> pp. 17-31
> 
> For centuries Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims have been building temples, synagogues,
> churches, cathedrals, and mosques. Around the world these places of worship have given expression to the
> cultural heritage of various peoples as they have interwoven their cultures with the forms of their particular
> religions. The building styles have changed with the ages, giving rise to distinctly recognizable periods of
> religious architecture.
> Bahá’ís, like members of other religions, have also undertaken to build places of worship. In the Kitáb-i-
> Aqdas (the Most Holy Book), Bahá’u’lláh, the Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, exhorts the “people of the world”
> to:
> 
> Build… houses of worship throughout the lands in the name of Him Who is the Lord of all religions. Make
> them as perfect as is possible in the world of being, and adorn them with that which befitteth them, not with
> images and effigies. Then, with radiance and joy, celebrate therein the praise of your Lord, the Most
> Compassionate.1.
> 
> Since the dawn of the twentieth century Bahá’ís have been attempting to fulfill Bahá’u’lláh’s directive. In
> the past ninety-four years designs for at least ten Bahá’í Houses of Worship around the world have been
> selected, and eight of them built.
> Although eight Houses of Worship is a small number, it is important to remember that the Bahá’í Faith
> was established in 1844; hence it is a relatively new world religion. As such, it has necessarily focused its
> resources on establishing its administrative organization throughout the world, giving priority to community
> building rather than to erecting places of worship. However, to spread the spiritual benefits of these
> important structures as widely as possible, they have been strategically placed around the globe, beginning
> with roughly one per continent, except Antarctica. Thus far, Bahá’ís have erected Houses of Worship in
> ‘Ishqábád (or Ashkhabad), Turkistan; Wilmette (near Chicago), Illinois; Mona Vale (near Sydney),
> Australia; Kampala, Uganda; Langenhain (near Frankfort am Main), Germany; Panama City, Panama; Apia,
> Western Samoa; and Bahapur (near New Delhi), India. A design was drawn up for a House of Worship in
> Marv, Turkistan, and designs for others in Tehran, Iran, and on Mount Carmel at the Bahá’í World Center in
> Haifa, Israel, have been selected. Bahá’ís intend eventually to build a House of Worship in every locality.
> The eight Bahá’í House of Worship that have been built were raised over a period spanning most of the
> twentieth century. During this time, building on the experience of earlier generations of Bahá’ís, and
> understanding to a greater measure the spiritual potential of the Houses of Worship, succeeding generations
> have risen to carry forward the building of “houses… as perfect as is possible in the world of being.”
> Paralleling efforts to create Bahá’í Houses of Worship has been an increasing understanding of what can
> be achieved by doing so. The ten formally selected designs for Houses of Worship reflect this gradual
> evolution in understanding, affirming Bahá’u’lláh’s explanation of how all things progress and develop.
> Even His own revelation, He says, will become stronger and more evident over time; just as the sun
> progresses from dawn to morning and then reaches its zenith at noon.2.
> In a letter written on his behalf, Shoghi Effendi, head of the Bahá’í Faith from 1921 until his death in
> 1957, alludes to the process of progressive unfoldment in the designs of Bahá’í Houses of Worship, saying
> that the “sacred architecture” created by the Bahá’í community “include elements of the previous schools of
> architecture in an ensemble that seems to present something new.”3. This “ensemble” is a synthesis of old
> and new. As the Bahá’í community has designed more Houses of Worship, the synthesis of old forms with
> the new concepts of the Bahá’í revelation has resulted in ever more exquisite manifestations of the Bahá’í
> Faiths central principle: the oneness of humanity. Evidence of such progress is most clearly evident in the
> newest Bahá’í House of Worship, which was completed in 1986 in Bahapur, near New Delhi, India.
> The oneness of humanity is expressed in the architecture of Bahá’í Houses of Worship by incorporating
> indigenous cultural symbols and transforming them into universal symbols. This transformation
> significantly affects the development of a global consciousness. The House of Worship in India offers an
> example of how such indigenous cultural symbols can be transformed into universal symbols. Because it is
> built in the form of a lotus blossom, an important ancient religious symbol of the Indian subcontinent, this
> “Indian” symbol is now becoming a point of identification and common reference for all humankind. Hence
> through the design of the Bahá’í House of Worship humanity is being united. This process of transforming
> local symbols into universal ones can be traced through the twentieth century by examining the ten existing
> designs.
> 
> The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár
> 
> To appreciate the significance of the design of the Bahá’í Houses of Worship it is helpful to understand the
> role of the Bahá’í House of Worship in the context of the community. Each Bahá’í House of Worship forms
> the center of a complex of institutions that are to serve the needs of society. This complex is collectively
> designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár, meaning “the Dawning-place of the praise of God.”4.
> The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is the preeminent medium of the Bahá’í concept of worship of God as service to
> humanity.5. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’u’lláh‘s son and appointed successor, explains that:
> 
> The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is one of the most vital institutions in the world, and it hath many subsidiary
> branches. Although it is a House of Worship, it is also connected with a hospital, a drug dispensary, a
> traveler’s hospice, a school for orphans, and a university for advanced studies. Every Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is
> connected with these five things.6.
> 
> The House of Worship is the heart and center of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár complex. It is dedicated to the
> praise of God and is reserved for prayer and the reading of, and meditation on, the sacred scriptures of the
> world’s revealed religions. The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is a conduit for the spiritual energy that is regenerating,
> uniting, and transforming human society into a reflection of the divine. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says that “the
> founding of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár will mark the inception of the Kingdom of God on earth.”7. Bahá’ís are
> enjoined to build one eventually in every community.
> 
> Design Considerations
> Because of the central importance of the House of Worship in the life of the community, its design is a
> manner of special significance. During ‘Abdu’l-Bahá‘s years as head of the Bahá’í Faith (1892-1921), He
> gave only two specifications regarding the form a Bahá’í House of Worship should take. He said that each
> House of Worship is to have nine sides and that it should have a circular shape.8. Shoghi Effendi later
> specified that each should also have a central dome.9.
> The requirement of a dome is an example of an evolving design. In a letter dated 20 April 1955 regarding
> the House of Worship to be built in Germany, Shoghi Effendi’s secretary said, “The Guardian has also
> indicated that there is nothing in the teaching requiring one dome for the building, in fact, any dome. It is of
> course more beautiful, generally to have a dome, or even domes, but that is not a necessary requirement of
> the Temple.”10.
> During the following months Shoghi Effendi came to a conclusion regarding this nebulous aspect of
> design. An undated letter written on his behalf that reached Germany in November 1955 explains that “The
> beloved Master has not given very many details concerning the House of Worship. He has written in tablets,
> however, that the building must be round, and be 9-sided. The Guardian feels that at this time all Bahá’í
> temples should have a dome.”11.
> The Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing and legislative body of the Bahá’í Faith, later
> specified that local cultural elements are to be part of a House of Worship’s design.12.
> Beyond the requirements of nine sides, a circular shape, and a dome, creativity and beauty are given free
> reign. In a letter written on his behalf, Shoghi Effendi says that the temple designs should reflect “The
> delicate architectural beauty which the spirit of the Faith should engender.”13. The role of beauty in the
> Bahá’í revelation is foundational. Many titles used in the Bahá’í writings to refer to Bahá’u’lláh incorporate
> the concept of beauty. Some of the titles signify His relationship to God: “He Who is Thy Beauty,” “the
> Manifestation of Thy Beauty,” and “the Day-Star of Thy Beauty.” Others have to do with His relationship to
> humanity: “the Ancient Beauty,” “the Blessed Beauty,” and “the Veilless Beauty.”14. Such appellations
> suggest that beauty is a significant feature of the Bahá’í revelation.
> Shoghi Effendi’s choice for the design of the International Bahá’í Archives building at the Bahá’í World
> Center, in Haifa, Israel, provides a direct example of the importance of beauty. The design is modeled after
> the Parthenon and other classical Greek temples. By choosing this style of architecture, Shoghi Effendi set
> the style for all future buildings at the Bahá’í World Center. When asked why he had chosen the Greek style
> of architecture for the buildings of the world administrative center of the Bahá’í Faith, he replied that it was
> beautiful, it had withstood the test of time, and it had remained beautiful for more than two thousand years.
> Many times he emphatically said, “I will always sacrifice utility to beauty.”15.
> The role of light in the design of Bahá’í Houses of Worship is also an important factor, for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
> encouraged the abundant use of light.16. Light makes beauty visible. Light banishes the darkness in which
> humanity has lived for too long. Light symbolizes knowledge, which dispels the darkness of ignorance.
> Hence every Bahá’í House of Worship is filled with natural light. In many of the designs the light floods in
> through huge spaces on the ground floor or above; all have abundant windows. The Wilmette design admits
> light through numerous tail, arches windows at the clerestory and gallery levels as well as through the skin of
> arabesque tracery stop the dome. The Panama City design admits light thorough large, open spaces that are
> exposed directly to the air. The Kampala design incorporates a mix of colored and clear glass. The Bahapur
> design uses indirect light that is reflected down into the auditorium from the upward reaching petals of the
> lotus.
> 
> A Gradual Evolution
> The first Bahá’í House of Worship and early drawings for two others were designed for Bahá’í communities
> living under restraints imposed by an antagonistic population in predominantly Muslim areas. The minarets
> of these designs would be somewhat inconspicuous in the often hostile cultures in which they were to be
> built. Of the early Western buildings, Mona Vale and Kampala are conservative in style, partially due to the
> financial restrictions under which they were erected. The later, more contemporary buildings tend to reflect
> more obviously the emerging synthesis of local cultural symbols with the concept of the oneness of
> humanity. The most recent design – that of Bahapur – transforms a local symbol into a new universal one.
> Since 1902 – for over half of the one hundred-and-fifty-year Bahá’í Era – the Bahá’í community has been
> designing and building Houses of Worship on virtually every continent. As these buildings have been raised,
> they have increasingly reflected the central principle of Bahá’u’lláh‘s revelation: the oneness of humanity.
> This principle has come to be more clearly demonstrated with each new House of Worship as elements of
> local indigenous culture are combined with a new vision of unity and the resulting synthesis is presented to
> the world as a gift.
> Examined chronologically, the designs of the Bahá’í Houses of Worship show an evolution in the degree
> to which the synthesis of local symbols and universal concepts is achieved. The following table lists the
> location of each House of Worship, the date it was designed, the date it was completed, and the architect’s
> name where known. The designs appear to fall into four categories: Islamic Restraint, western Synthesis,
> Transitional, and Indigenous/Universal.
> Although the categories may be somewhat arbitrary, they are useful for the purposes of discussion. The
> designs for the earliest Houses of Worship were for ones located in areas where a large Bahá’í community
> existed within an antagonistic Muslim population. Hence the designs needed to blend with the surrounding
> architecture. These designs are labeled “Islamic restraint.” In the Euro-American West, where greater
> freedom of expression has been possible, the designs for Houses of Worship have varied while sharing a
> common silhouette and proportional scheme. These designs can be called “Western Synthesis.” When
> Shoghi Effendi specified that each Bahá’í House of Worship must reflect the local culture surrounding it, the
> next three designs began to demonstrate a perceptual shift toward a futuristic style what incorporates local
> flavor. As a result, the silhouette changed. These designs show a transition and are, therefore, referred to as
> “Transitional.” With the most recent design (in Bahapur); the local element is inseparable from the building
> as a whole. It can be called “Indigenous/Universal.”
> 
> Period                  Location                 date             date          architect
> of design        of completion
> 
> Islamic Restraint       ‘Ishqábád                1902             1921             Valkoff
> (now Ashkhabad)
> Turkistan
> 
> Marv, Turkistan          190?                              Unknown
> 
> Tehran, Iran             1955                              C.M. Remey
> 
> Western Synthesis       Wilmette, Illinois       1919             1953             Louis Bourgeois
> Mount Carmel,            1952                             C.M. Remey
> Haifa, Israel
> 
> Mona Vale, Australia     1956             1961            C.M. Remey
> 
> Kampala, Uganda          1956             1961            C.M. Remey
> 
> Transitional            Langenhain, Germany 1956                  1964            Teoto Rocholl
> 
> Panama City, Panama      1966             1972            Peter Tillotson
> 
> Apia, Western Samoa      1978             1984            Ḥusayn Amanat
> Indigenous/
> Universal               Bahapur, India           1977             1986            Fariburz Sahba
> 
> A Period of Islamic Restraint
> 
> The designs for the Houses of Worship in ‘Ishqábád and Tehran clearly reflect the restraints of the primarily
> Muslim society within which they were intended to serve. Although both designs draw on the prevailing
> local culture, each represents an attempt to demonstrate a physical form of unity. Yet in several ways both
> imitate the past. The designs blend somewhat with the architecture of the dominant society. Both are either
> built or intended to be built in areas where Muslim hostility towards Bahá’ís ran high. This is most obvious
> in the prominent entrance portals, which are reminiscent of the grand entrances of Muslim sacred
> architecture. The ‘Ishqábád and Tehran Houses of Worship are the only designs that have a main entrance
> façade with twin minarets flanking it.
> A design was created for a House of Worship that was to be built in Marv, Turkestan, where a large
> Bahá’í population was located at the turn of the century, but it was never built, and no rendering of it is
> available.
> The ‘Ishqábád House of Worship. Construction of the first Bahá’í House of Worship began in 1902 in
> ‘Ishqábád, Turkistan, in an area that eventually became part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The
> design of the ‘Ishqábád House of Worship contains many elements of Iranian religious architecture,
> combining elements common to Iranian sacred tombs and mosques. The main entrance is centered in an
> arch flanked on both sides by lofty minarets. The entrance arch is similar to that in the main entrance of the
> central open courtyard of a Muslim mosque. The minarets that flank the entrance feature balconies and
> shelters for a muezzin, structures that have no practical use in a Bahá’í House of Worship, for there are no
> muezzins in the Bahá’í Faith.
> The only outward features that distinguish the edifice as a Bahá’í structure are its nine sides, nine
> avenues, and nine ornamental plaques and exterior inscriptions. The nine plaques that encircle the pinnacle
> of the dome, each inscribed with the Greatest Name rendered in script, appear to be an after-thought, not a
> permanent part of the structure.17. Wires stream out from the pinnacle of the dome to hold the plaques in
> place. If they were to be removed, the overall design would not be changed significantly. The Arabic
> inscription above the entrance is from the Bahá’í sacred texts, but only a person who is familiar with
> Bahá’u’lláh’s writings would identify it as a passage from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.
> The design for the ‘Ishqábád House of Worship represents a beginning effort to create new physical forms
> symbolizing a new revelation from God. it combines and unites Bahá’í elements with elements of Iranian
> sacred architecture. The borrowing is so strong, however, that an uninformed observer simply glancing at
> the design for this edifice is not likely to identify it as a Bahá’í House of Worship. Thus the similarity to
> Iranian sacred architecture appears more to be an attempt to blend with the surrounding architecture than a
> new vision of unity.
> Nevertheless, the ‘Ishqábád House of Worship is significant for a number of reasons. Shoghi Effendi
> indicates that its construction is among the major accomplishments of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá‘s ministry.18. it was the
> first Bahá’í House of Worship ever to be built; the first to be confiscated by an inimical regime; and, sadly,
> the first to be destroyed. On October 5, 1948, an earthquake with a magnitude of 7 and an intensity of 9 on
> the MSK-64 international seismic scale damaged the building so severely that it had to be razed (much of the
> city was destroyed in twenty seconds). Perhaps most significant is its status as part of the most complete
> Mashriqu’l-Adhkár complex the Bahá’ís have yet constructed, for it was surrounded by a number of the
> ancillary facilities that comprise the institution of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár.19. These included a school, a
> travelers’ hospice, and a library. A hospital was also planned.
> The Tehran House of Worship. The Tehran House of Worship was the fourth Bahá’í House of Worship to
> be designed, but it has not yet been erected because of local disturbances and because of the severe and
> continuing persecution of the Iranian Bahá’í community. The architect’s drawing, which does not include
> any comments or notes, provides all of the information that is presently available in English about the
> design.20. The erection of this House of Worship has been a deferred goal for the Bahá’ís since 1953. From
> time to time small measures have been undertaken to prepare for the building’s eventual construction, yet it
> remains unbuilt due to the unfavorable conditions.
> The front entrance of the Tehran design is distinguished from the eight other sides of the building by its
> twin minarets and three sets of doors. Every other side of the building appears to have a columned bay.
> Nine minarets anchor each corner of the structure. All of the minarets rise only slightly above the exterior
> walls, with those flanking the entrance being larger and taller than the others – a common feature of
> mosques. The crown of the dome resembles that of the Shrine of the Báb in Haifa, Israel, even in such
> details as the pinnacles and railings.21. The dome of the Tehran House of Worship is unadorned but topped
> with a large lantern, which, along with the columned bays, is its most unique feature.
> 
> A Period of Western Synthesis
> 
> The next four Houses of Worship to be designed – those of Wilmette, Illinois; Mount Carmel, Israel; Mona
> Vale, Australia; and Kampala, Uganda – are similar in form, for they each include an auditorium, a clerestory
> level, and a dome. These three components echo some of the main components of Christian cathedrals, such
> as the ground floor, the clerestory, and the spire or dome. All four Houses of Worship were designed by
> Western architects, and all give evidence of aspirations to universality. The designs for the Wilmette and
> Mount Carmel Houses of Worship appear to merge elements or symbols from various cultures into one form.
> This universalizing aim seems to take a different and perhaps more successful direction in later designs that
> facilitate the oneness of humanity in more concrete ways.
> The Wilmette House of Worship. The designs for the Wilmette and Mount Carmel Houses of Worship
> reflect a universality that does not mirror a specific local culture but reaches back in time to blend details
> from around the world to create a new vision of the oneness of humankind. This is especially true of the
> Wilmette House of Worship. Louis Bourgeois, the architect, said of his model, “Into this new design, then,
> of the Temple is woven, in symbolic form, the great Bahá’í teaching of unity – the unity of all religions and
> of all mankind.”22. Among the exterior decorative elements he incorporated are the circle, a universal symbol
> of eternity and the divine; the Zoroastrian swastika; the Christian cross; the Muslim star and crescent; and the
> five-pointed and nine-pointed stars symbolizing the Bábí and Bahá’í Faiths.
> When the design for the Wilmette House of Worship was created, American architecture had recently
> witnessed dramatic changes centered in Chicago with the work of Louis Sullivan, a pioneer in skyscraper
> construction. Though there is no evidence that Sullivan was involved in designing the Wilmette House of
> Worship, his influence can be seen in the flowing lines reflecting the simultaneous motion and permanence
> of nature. Recent technical advances in architecture and engineering had produced the first modern
> skyscrapers and buildings that could be more open to light than ever before. The Wilmette House of
> Worship is a direct heir to these new forms of architecture. The new use of steel as a supporting framework
> or structural skeleton eliminated the need for massive lower masonry walls to support the weight of tall
> buildings. Structurally, the Wilmette edifice resembles a skyscraper more than any traditional place of
> worship in that it has a steel skeleton covered by a thin skin of precast concrete panels. This supporting steel
> framework allows for its bell-like silhouette and height.
> The strength of steel also allowed for an abundant use of glass in the Wilmette House of Worship,
> permitting the inclusion of more window space than would otherwise have been possible. The many large
> windows and the use of electric lights bring full illumination into the building day and night. This is the
> “century of light,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said. American innovation and technology brought the use of light to
> fulfillment in the Wilmette House of Worship.
> The 1890s inaugurated not only a new era in American architecture but a new era in world architecture as
> well. It was a time when many felt that the form of a building should follow its function. In its liberation
> from the past, architecture began to incorporate an eclectic mix of expressions to achieve unusual
> configurations and appearances. Before this time, Sullivan considered architectural art to have been
> incompletely developed because it had not harmoniously united emotion with intellect. He considered that
> “only the spiritual results of architecture are really important.”23.
> Thus it was intellectually easy and logical to incorporate various divergent religious symbols into the
> design of the Wilmette House of Worship for a new religion whose central principle is the oneness of
> humanity. The resulting synthesis, uniting various symbols in a nine-sided circular form, produced an
> overall effect that was unique in human history: a bell-like structure with the appearance of lace. The design
> represents a universal cultural appreciation, as it takes elements rooted in the world’s past and unifies them in
> a harmonious vision of the future.
> The Mount Carmel House of Worship. The design for the House of Worship planned for Mount Carmel
> reflects a number of details that can be seen in the Shrine of the Báb. The similarity is most apparent in the
> arched windows and in the domes of the minarets.24. The arches and minarets show Eastern influence, while
> the dome resembles that of Saint Peter’s Cathedral in Rome. The architect, Charles Mason Remey, gave
> credit to Shoghi Effendi for the design explaining, “I must say that the architecture, the architectural motifs,
> are really his rather than mine.”25. The resemblance between the design for the Mount Carmel House of
> Worship and the Shrine of the Báb was intentional.
> The Mona Vale and Kampala Houses of Worship. The Houses of Worship built in Mona Vale, Australia,
> and Kampala, Uganda, are the most conservative and Western in design. A letter written on behalf of Shoghi
> Effendi in 1956 to a National Spiritual Assembly explains that Shoghi Effendi felt “that as this is the Mother
> Temple of Europe, and an institution which will be supported by contributions from Bahá’ís all over the
> world, it has a very great importance, and must under all circumstances be dignified, and not represent an
> extremist point of view in architecture. No one knows how the styles of the present day may be judged two
> or three generations from now, but the Bahá’ís cannot afford to build a second Temple if the one that they
> build at the present time should seem too extreme and unsuitable at a future date.”26.
> In many ways the designs for the Mona Vale and Kampala Houses of Worship could be considered twins.
> They were built at about the same time for the same reason, as recompense to the Iranian Bahá’ís who were
> suffering continued persecution in the 1950s. Both buildings were designed by Charles Mason Remey, with
> the same considerations of design, style, size, and cost. Rúhíyyih Khánum, the wife of Shoghi Effendi and
> an eminent Bahá’í in her own right, recounts that Shoghi Effendi “extracted from the architect he had at hand
> the designs he felt were suitable for the Sydney and Kampala Houses of Worship. These were dignified,
> pleasing in proportion, conservative in style and relatively modest in cost.”27. Both Houses of Worship were
> erected under severe financial restraints.28.
> Some decorations were omitted from the Mona Vale edifice to reduce the cost, which explains why the
> gallery windows appear surprisingly plain and not like the model, in contrast to the latter’s tall clerestory
> windows and the entrances.29. The ribs flowing down from the top of the dome and the pinnacles relieve the
> angular features.
> The simple, straightforward lines of the Kampala House of Worship reflect, in a way, the purity of the
> hearts of the African believers. The structure’s lines and colors blend and merge with the African spirit and
> countryside. Rúhíyyih Khánum, in a speech given at the dedication of the Kampala temple, said, “The
> simplicity, dignity and beauty of the design, the soft green of dome and roofs, the sand tones of the outer
> walls, the coarse texture of its finish – all blend in perfect accord with the ironstone soil, the dry savanna
> grasses and the tropical green of bush and tree.”30. Beyond its simplicity and its multiple wide, embracing,
> and protecting eaves, the Kampala design does not look African and would not be out of place in any
> Western city.
> 
> A Period of Transition
> 
> Of the designs discussed so far, the three Houses of Worship that were most often seen throughout the 1960s
> – those in Wilmette, Mona Vale, and Kampala – became somewhat of a “standard” for Bahá’ís of that time.
> The Wilmette, Mona Vale, and Kampala designs were comfortable, and, with similar silhouettes, may have
> seemed to have established a pattern for future Houses of Worship. When the design for the next House of
> Worship was unveiled, many Bahá’ís were unsure how to react to it. It certainly did not look like the others;
> but it was going to be theirs. Some continued to feel this ambivalence for the next decade.31.
> The Langenhain House of Worship. A dramatic break with the past occurred with the selection of the
> design for the House of Worship near Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The architect, Teuto Rocholl, ignored
> the “standard” silhouette of the previous Bahá’í temples and set the dome directly on top of the auditorium,
> eliminating the clerestory level found in other designs. Here was a new shape for a Bahá’í House of
> Worship.
> The German House of Worship is the last design to be approved by Shoghi Effendi, a point that raises a
> few questions. Is it significant that this design is also the first done in a very contemporary style? If Shoghi
> Effendi, as head of the Bahá’í Faith, had not chosen a contemporary design, might the Houses of Worship
> designed after his passing have followed more conservative lines? The design Shoghi Effendi originally
> selected for Germany was much more conservative. Did his selection of a more modern design make it
> easier for the Bahá’í community to accept the very different designs that followed it?
> The design for the Langenhain House of Worship was the first of the contemporary, nontraditional styles
> that began to show evidence of the emerging synthesis of local culture and universal faith. Shoghi Effendi
> clearly emphasized the need for compatibility with local culture in his communications with the National
> Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Germany and Austria, when, through a letter written on his behalf, he
> said that the architect should be instructed to “create something that will be desirable and appropriate for
> your area.”32.
> Why was the design for the German House of Worship so different from all the preceding ones? In her
> biography of Shoghi Effendi, Rúhíyyih Khánum tells how the selection of the design was made:
> 
> He himself [Shoghi Effendi] had chosen a design and sent it to the National Assembly of the Bahá’ís of
> Germany and Austria, but there was already so much strong church-aroused opposition to the erection of a
> Bahá’í House of Worship that the National Assembly had informed him they felt the conservative nature of
> the design he had chosen would, in a land favoring at the moment extremely modern-style buildings,
> complicate its erection, as a building permit might be refused on this pretext. Shoghi Effendi therefore
> permitted them to hold a competition and of the designs sent him he favored the one which was later built.”33.
> 
> The Langenhain House of Worship is a strikingly modern building made of concrete and glass, a
> reflection of a contemporary society. The designs for the Houses of Worship later built in Panama and
> Samoa continue this modern style and silhouette, though each exhibits more progressively than the last the
> emerging synthesis in which elements of native culture are blended with a new vision of the future and the
> oneness of humanity.
> The Panama City House of Worship. When the design for the Panama City, Panama, was selected, the
> Universal House of Justice stipulated that the design of a House of Worship must reflect the indigenous
> culture of the area in which it was to be built. The House of Justice informed the Bahá’ís of the world that it
> had asked the architect “to submit a final design, based on his original conception but embodying pre-
> Columbian motifs and making use of local materials.”34. Thus the incorporation of cultural elements became
> a central concern. The wing-walls of the Panama House of Worship are covered with patterned brickwork
> inspired by Mesoamerican designs, and their points are stepped like the pyramids of the ancient local
> cultures.
> The Apia House of Worship. The design of the House of Worship in Apia, Western Samoa, features its
> Polynesian heritage. The overall configuration of that edifice resembles a “fale,” the style of grass-roofed
> house built by the indigenous people of Samoa. Large spaces on the exterior, above the entrances and
> between the side walls, are to be filled in the future with panels of Polynesian style artwork. The artwork is
> not yet in place, as it is being hand-carved in the traditional way, a process that will take years.
> The Houses of Worship in Panama and Samoa are most significant for their expression of the cultural
> heritage of their native peoples. The native cultural-elements are not merely reflected, but are thoroughly
> integrated into the designs. The Panama design is definitely Mesoamerican, while the Samoan design is
> decidedly Polynesian. This kind of cultural identity is not as apparent in the Mona Vale, Kampala, or
> Langenhain designs. This synthesis is the essence of the Bahá’í principle of unity in diversity, according to
> which all peoples will be united while preserving the integrity and diversity of each. Bahá’ís have brought
> forth a visible expression of this spiritual reality in the designs for the Houses of Worship in Panama and
> Samoa. Both are obviously modern, for while they are firmly rooted in the local culture, they are not ghosts
> of the past. They are an intimation of what is to come.
> 
> A Blossoming Synthesis
> 
> The most recently constructed Bahá’í House of Worship is that of Bahapur (the ancient name of the site),
> near New Delhi, India. Its design offers concrete evidence of the blossoming synthesis of cultural and
> religious symbols thorough the power of Bahá’u’lláh’s revelation. The transformation appears complete.
> The indigenous symbol – the lotus – is not just a decoration or a component of the overall design. It is the
> House of Worship. Who else have ever made a building in the form of a flower? What is more deeply
> rooted in the heritage of India than the lotus blossom?
> The lotus blossom is richly symbolic in Indian religious tradition. Because the flower rises out of mud
> and slime toward fresh air, it symbolizes mediation – a bridge from the earthly world to the heavenly one.
> Hindus see the lotus, in its growth and unfolding as the vehicle for the generation of Brahma, the agent of
> creation; it epitomizes the coming forth of creation from the mind of Vishnu. In both the Hindu and
> Buddhist religions the lotus is thought to envelop the center of one’s being; it is considered the home of the
> soul. In the Indo-Tibetan mandalas, the opening lotus indicates the evidence of divine powers. The qualities
> most closely linked with the lotus are prosperity and good fortune, which are conceptually linked to creation
> and the bounties of the created world. The lotus is also associated with birth, beauty, and sensuality and is
> considered sacred in China and Egypt.
> Rúhíyyih Khánum, in a speech given before the laying of the cornerstone of the New Delhi House of
> Worship, explained the significance of the lotus as a symbol:
> 
> the lotus, par excellence, is a symbol of the Manifestation of God. The lotus is probably the most perfect
> flower in the world. It is symmetrical, it is exquisitely beautiful. And how does it grow? It grows in a
> swamp. It comes out of mud and raises its head from the slime absolutely clean and perfect.
> Now this is what the Manifestation of God of God is in the world. He comes out of the slime of this
> planet. He comes from the worst place on the planet. He appears among the worst people on the planet, so
> that no one can say that we made Him. They say that only God can bring forth such a being from such an
> environment.35.
> 
> In this flower of India – the “Lotus of Bahapur,” as it has come to be known – an important element of the
> ancient religious heritage of the peoples of India is completely merged with the fundamental Bahá’í principle
> of the oneness of humanity. The lotus cannot be removed from the design of the building without
> eliminating the entire structure. The ancient symbol has become a modern expression that speaks to the
> entire world; an indigenous symbol has become a universal one. For many people around the world the
> ancient lotus of India is now inseparably associated with a new universal faith. At the same time, the
> Bahapur House of Worship is inextricably associated with the peoples of India. When the indigenous
> becomes indistinguishable from the universal, the oneness of humanity has begun. The day of unity is here.
> 
> Conclusion
> The revelation of Bahá’u’lláh transforms human society at all levels and in all forms. The change first
> becomes evident in the lives of individuals, then in their communities, and finally in the structures those
> communities erect. Eventually such changes will be felt in greater and greater measure in society as a whole.
> In less than one hundred years the architectural styles of Bahá’í Houses of Worship have progressed from
> an imitation of the past, to a blending of various indigenous cultural elements, to a style that completely
> transforms an indigenous symbol into a universal one. The uniting of humankind in concrete symbols as
> well as in the hearts of more and more people is now fully under way.
> As the Bahá’í community begins to reflect a new spiritual and cultural synthesis, so will the institution of
> the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár and its central edifice, the Bahá’í House of Worship. As time goes on, and the Bahá’í
> community increases in strength and responsibility, further physical evidence of beauty and unity will
> increasingly transform the human environment. The designs for Bahá’í Houses of Worship can lead the way.
> The spiritual transformation of the peoples of the world will change a divisive and hostile planet into one
> in which unity in diversity is the prevailing norm. Individual cultures will be neither lost nor buried under
> some global cultural, spiritual, economic, or political tyranny but will be reinvigorated and will rise to new
> heights of harmony and beauty. The heritage of native peoples will not be despised, ignored or destroyed, as
> has happened all too often in history, but will be elevated and transformed into a permanent, integral part of
> the future. Houses “as perfect as is possible in the world of being” will be raised in all corners of the globe.
> 
> Notes:
> 
> 1. Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas: the Most Holy Book, ps ed (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
> 1993) ¶31.
> 2. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, trans. Shoghi Effendi, 1st ps ed, (Wilmette, Ill.:
> Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1983) 87-88.
> 3. Shoghi Effendi, The Light of Divine Guidance: The Messages from the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith to
> the Bahá’ís of Germany and Austria (Langenhain, West Germany: National Spiritual Assembly of the
> Bahá’ís of Germany, 1982) 246.
> 4. See The Kitáb-i-Aqdas 253.
> 5. See Horace Holley, “Foreword,” in “The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár,” in The Bahá’í World (Formerly: Bahá’í
> Year Book): A Biennial International Record, Volume II, 1926-1928, comp. National Spiritual Assembly of
> the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1928) 114, and
> Shoghi Effendi, “The Spiritual Significance of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár,” in The Bahá’í World (Formerly:
> Bahá’í Year Book): A Biennial International Record, Volume III, 1928-1930, comp. National Spiritual
> Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee) 161,
> 163.
> 6. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, comp. Research Department of the
> Universal House of Justice, trans. Committee at the Bahá’í World Center and Marzieh Gail (Haifa: Bahá’í
> World Center, 1978) 99-100.
> 7. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, quoted in The Kitáb-i-Aqdas n53; ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, quoted in “The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár:
> ‘The Dawning Place of God’s Praise,’” in Bahá’í Year Book, Volume One, 1925-1926, comp. National
> Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New York: Bahá’í Publishing
> Committee, 1926) 61.
> 8. See on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, letter dated 25 June 1954, In Light of Divine Guidance: Messages 216.
> 9. See on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, undated letter, in Light of Divine Guidance: Messages 247.
> 10. On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, letter dated 20 April 1955, in Light of Divine Guidance: Messages 232.
> 11. On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, undated letter, in Light of Divine Guidance: Messages 247.
> 12. See “News from the World Centre,” in Bahá’í News, no 431(February 1967): 3.
> 13. On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, letter dated 10 November 1955, in Light of Divine Guidance: Messages
> 245-46.
> 14. Bahá’u’lláh, The Desire of the World: Materials for the contemplation of God and His Manifestations
> for this Day, comp. Rúhíyyih Rabbani (Oxford: George Ronald, 1982) 177.
> 15. See Amatu’l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum, “The Completion of the International Archives,” in The Bahá’í
> World: An International Record, Volume XIII, 1954-1963, comp. the Universal House of Justice (Haifa: The
> Universal House of Justice, 1970) 424; Shoghi Effendi, quoted in Bahá’í World, Vol. XIII 422.
> 16. H.M. Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá: The Centre of the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh (London: George Ronald,
> 1971) 157.
> 17. The Greatest Name refers to the name Bahá’u’lláh (the Glory of God) and its derivatives, such as Alláh-
> u-Abhá (God is Most Glorious), Bahá (glory, splendor, or light) and Yá Bahá‘u’l-Abhá (O Thou the Glory
> of the Most Glorious!).
> 18. Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, rev. ed. (Wilmette, Ill.; Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1974) 296, 314.
> 19. For fuller descriptions and accounts of the ‘Ishqábád House of Worship, see “The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár “
> in Bahá’í World, Vol. II 121-22; “The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár of ‘Ishqábád,” in Bahá’í World, Vol. III 168-69;
> “The Institution of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár ,” in The Bahá’í World: An International Record, Volume XIV,
> 1963-1968, comp. the Universal House of Justice, 1974) 479-80; Balyuzi, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá 109-10; and A.A.
> Lee, “The Rise of the Bahá’í Community of ‘Ishqábád,” in Bahá’í Studies 5 (January 1979): 1-13.
> 20. The architect’s drawing of the Bahá’í House of Worship for Tehran, Iran, can be found in Bahá’í World,
> Vol. XIV 495. For the announcement of the selection of the design for the Tehran House of Worship, see
> Shoghi Effendi’s cable dated 20 March 1955, in Bahá’í News, no. 290 (April 1955): 1.
> 21. Siyyid ‘Alí-Muhammad (1819-50), titled the Báb, or Gate, was the Prophet-Herald of Bahá’u’lláh. The
> Báb’s mortal remains are interred on the slopes of Mount Carmel within a mausoleum that was built by
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and later enclosed by a superstructure built by Shoghi Effendi.
> 22. Louis J. Bourgeois, “The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár : Visible Embodiment of the Universality of Bahá’u’lláh,”
> in The Bahá’í World: A Biennial International Record, Volume IV, 1930-1932, comp. National Spiritual
> Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada (New York: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1933)
> 206.
> 23. Louis Sullivan, quoted in Hugh D. Duncan, Culture and Democracy (Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press,
> 1965) 242, 235.
> 24. for further details about the House of Worship planned for Mount Carmel, see “Events connected with
> the Holy Land and the Growth of the International Center” and Charles Mason Remey, “Unveiling the Model
> of the Temple to be Constructed on Mount Carmel,” in The Bahá’í World: A Biennial International Record,
> Volume XII, 1950-1954, comp. National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States (Wilmette,
> Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1956) 37, 548.
> 25. Charles Mason Remey, “Unveiling the Model of the Temple to be Constructed on Mount Carmel,” in
> Bahá’í World, Vol. XII 550.
> 26. On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, letter dated 21 June 1956, in Light of Divine Guidance: Messages 263.
> 27. Rúhíyyih Khánum, The Priceless Pearl (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1969) 434, 131.
> 28. See “The Mother Temple of Africa,” in Bahá’í World, Vol. XIII 708-09, and “The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár of
> the Antipodes,” in Bahá’í World, Vol. XIII 721, 723.
> 29. To compare the model and the completed House of Worship, see Bahá’í News, no. 324 (February 1958):
> 5; see also Bahá’í World, Vol. XIV 478.
> 30. Rúhíyyih Khánum, “Hand of the Cause Amatu’l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum Dedicates Mother Temple of
> Africa,” in Bahá’í World, Vol. XIII 713.
> 31. Comments heard by the author in the early 1970s from older Bahá’ís who had been active members of
> the Bahá’í community since the 1950s.
> 32. On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, letter dated 10 February 1955, in Light of Divine Guidance: Messages 228.
> 33. Rabbaní, Priceless Pearl 433.
> 34. “News from the World Centre,” in Bahá’í News, no. 431 (February 1967): 3.
> 35. Amatu’l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum, “A Very Special Gift,” in Bahá’í News, no. 564 (March 1978): 6.
>
> — *Houses as Perfect as Is Possible (Used by permission of the curator)*