Thursday, January 8, 2009

Some thoughts while reading Alison's blog

The Baha'i modernist worldview
http://meditationsonbahaullah.blogspot.com/2008/09/bahai-modernist-worldview.html
And because Baha'is are stuck in a Guardian time warp, they still see the faith in a modernist way. Key features of this include: a centralised administration that wields absolute authority using the ideology that the administration is, exclusively, the Baha'i Faith. This is justified on the basis of a self-serving, narrow interpretation of the covenant, backed up with the idolatrous doctrine of infallibility. All those wishing to join are persuaded to accept this claim, encouraged to put all their resources into carrying out the centralised plans, and indoctrinated to believe that there is no salvation outside this realm. All activity must take place within the acceptable spheres of participation; those who follow their own star are ostracised and those who speak out in a persuasive way are disenrolled.
I'm considering how I might explain all that to a Baha'i in the middle of it all who doesn't see it.

I don't imagine that anyone would disagree that the House of Justice wields absolute authority in the current practice of the Baha'i community. For "the ideology that the administration is, exclusively, the Baha'i Faith," I might give examples of Auxiliary Board members and assistants depreciating any initiative that is not derived from the goals and plans of the House of Justice. For "self-serving, narrow interpretation of the Covenant," I might discuss the popular view of reducing the Covenant to the infallibility of the central figures and the House of Justice, and shunning people they call Covenant breakers. It seems obvious to me how that could be self-serving for the central figures and the House of Justice. To show how narrow it is, I would invite the person to study Abdu'l-Baha'is Will and Testament with me, to see what else it says besides that.

For "idolatrous doctrine of infallibility," I might give examples of people using the writings of the House of Justice for guidance and inspiration in preference to those of Baha'u'llah, including one person who said in an Internet discussion "I don't care what Baha'u'llah said. I only care what the House of Justice says He said."

I don't imagine anyone would disagree that all those wishing to join are persuaded to accept this claim, and encouraged to put all their resources into carrying out the centralized plans. I'm wondering now how many might see something wrong with this. Because people aren't protesting, doesn't mean they don't see anything wrong with it. It might mean that they think it would be wrong to protest, or even to question it. They might equate popular views of infallibility with those of the central figures. They might think it would be wrong to question them. They might imagine that monopolization of people's time, and the depreciation of initiatives outside of the plans, are coming from the institutions, which is partly true. They might imagine that it would be wrong to do otherwise, or even question it.

For "indoctrinated to believe that there is no salvation outside this realm," I might point to some parts of the Ruhi courses.

"All activity must take place within the acceptable spheres of participation; those who follow their own star are ostracized and those who speak out in a persuasive way are disenrolled."

I imagine most people have seen examples of Auxiliary Board members and assistants depreciating initiatives not explicitly set in the framework. I would have no trouble giving examples of people who have been ostracized for following their own star, and disenrolled after speaking out.

Continuing through the blog:

"A crucial idea that helps to prop up this ideological structure is the argument that the term 'unenrolled Baha'i' is an oxymoron (a contradiction in terms) - to be a Baha'i, one must be a member of the Baha'i community."

That's so ironic. At the same time, it is popular among Baha'is to call people Baha'is who have not yet joined, but who agree with some of our popular ideology.

The idea that people who have left the Faith can not be Baha'is might come at least partly from the idea that there can be no schism in the Baha'i Faith. Seeing people who have rejected the community calling themselves Baha'is might seem like a contradiction to that, especially when they encourage and support each other. One way out of the dilemma is to say that they are not Baha'is.

"Don't glance out the window, keep facing straight ahead, don't lose your chance. I swear, I've spent nearly three decades running around in a panic because of that quote"

I've suffered a lot from that, and I've seen many others suffering from it. I eventually came out of it, and I've seen many others do that, too.

"I'm going to follow my own star; I'm going to fulfil my duties to Baha'u'llah according to my spiritual calling; I'm going to do things I would never have done had I remained a member of the Baha'i community; and I'm going to discover things about myself I wouldn't have discovered otherwise."

Yes, yes, please do! Make your own kind of music! Sing your own special song! And keep encouraging others to do the same!

"And one day - it'll come - the Baha'i administration will realise that it needs to get out of the world of thought, stop indoctrinating its members according to its self-serving ideology, and get down to the virtuous business of making good law."

I've seen some people in Internet discussions about Baha'i social and theological issues, who seem to imagine that any idea which has ever received unfavorable attention from the House of Justice has to be discarded, or that it's wrong for any of us to promote any ideas that we see as contrary to the views of one of the central figures or the House of Justice. That seems very unhealthy to me, and if that's a popular view in Baha'i studies, it might seriously impede our progress. I'm not sure how popular it is. I've seen articles in Baha'i Studies reviews that don't seem to be hampered in that way. I have seen that view poisoning every Baha'i Internet discussion, and it was a factor in the decision not to include the Service of Women paper in the Bahá'í Library Online.

". . . get down to the virtuous business of making good law."

I've sometimes wondered how a person can imagine that the only function of Baha'u'llah's House of Justice is to make laws, other than by blinding himself to everything else Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi say about it. Now I can see it as the best way some people have found to counteract the disabling effects of some popular Baha'i views of the Covenant.

No comments: