Dear Friends,
I turn Seventy today, October 3rd 2026. I’ve been a Baha’i since I was Seventeen. Much has changed in the 52+ years since I joined. Many old-timers have made the same observation. Back then we had 150,000 Baha’is. Now about 75,000, with more ex- or inactive Baha’is than active. I’d like to take the opportunity of my birthday to share some insights as to why.
Perhaps you have not noticed, but since I sell teaching materials, it is obvious to me that the Bahá’í Community in the U.S. is not growing. In fact, it is about half the size that it was 52 years ago when I joined. Enrollments have gone from 3000 a year to 300 a year, and there are as many people officially withdrawing as joining.
Why?
We could blame people for not being receptive.
We could blame ourselves for not teaching correctly.
But I believe it goes deeper than that.
There are millions of open-minded, receptive people who hear that we believe in equality, but see that we do not include women on our highest Council, and it troubles them.
There are thousands more who feel unwelcome because they, or someone they care about, are gay.
These two policies not only chase potential Bahá’ís away – they also trouble the hearts of Bahá’ís themselves, who may or may not choose to express their concerns, and who may or may not decide to step back from participation in Community life.
Then there are the thousands of other Bahá’ís, who have accepted these policies, but have felt their creative spirits being stifled by the limiting structure of the institute process. Many of them have also stepped back from participating in community life.
Perhaps saddest of all, however, are the thousands of dedicated Bahá’ís like you, who are obeying every word of guidance as hard as they can, and still see almost no results. They have done every Ruhi book. They attend every meeting. They host devotions and classes, and still nothing changes. They blame themselves and try even harder, until they finally burn themselves out.
If we count inactive and estranged Bahá’ís, then people who struggle with these issues make up the majority of the believers in Bahá’u’lláh. They are some of my best customers.
So, is every Bahá’í who is struggling with one or more of these policies in trouble? Are they violating the Covenant because they have questions about where we are heading? If you are part of the majority that has doubts about any of this, are you a bad Bahá’í?
No.
It means that the same heart that attracted you to Bahá’u’lláh in the first place; that made you fall in love with the spirit of His Teachings, is also telling you that these policies do not reflect the spirit of love, inclusion and independent thought that you dedicated your life to.
This doesn’t make you a bad Bahá’í. It makes you a true Bahá’í.
So take a deep breath, and let’s take a look a what has allowed the Community to drift so far from its original spirit. I promise I won’t say a word against the authority of the Institutions. This is not about authority. It is about something else.
All of these issues are the result of a single idea. This idea is so entrenched in the Community that it has become a Sacred Cow. It might be more accurately describes as The Sacred Elephant in the living room. It is something so big and so unquestioned that not only are we not allowed to touch it, we aren’t even allowed to look at it.
I was warned not to name this elephant. My friends said that no one wanted to admit it was there. So, I’m not going to name the elephant. I’m going to let Bahá’u’lláh name him.
In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, paragraph 47, Baha’u’llah reveals, “He Who is the Dawning-place of God’s Cause hath no partner in the Most Great Infallibility“. And again, in the Tablet of Splendors, He revealed, “Render thanks unto God, inasmuch as He hath unraveled for thee that which was hidden and enshrined in His knowledge so that everyone may become aware that within His realm of supreme infallibility He hath not taken a partner nor a counselor unto Himself.”
Yes, I am going to talk about infallibility. Now before you freak out and stop reading, let me remind you that if you are one of the thousands of Bahá’ís who have concerns about women on the House of Justice, our attitude towards homosexuals, or the way the Institute Process has affected the Community, then you already have concerns about how we apply the idea of infallibility to our community life. Isn’t it better to face these concerns head-on rather than keeping them in the shadows where they fester?
It isn’t the claim of infallibility that I want to address, but rather our rigid understanding of what that means.
From the above quotations, you can see that Baha’u’llah has reserved “The Most Great Infallibility” for Himself. This leaves us with the question of what is the nature of conferred infallibility, and how should it be understood in application?
In consulting with Bahá’í scholars in Europe, I learned that many of them have adopted a fairly flexible understanding of infallibility. In this view, being infallibly guided is not the same as having essential infallibility. Being guided allows for missteps, and the opportunity to change your mind.
American believers, on the other hand, have a very rigid and all-encompassing view of infallibility. This makes sense, since we are steeped in a culture that leans towards black and white thinking. Americans believe in a literal heaven and hell, salvation or damnation, six-day creation, Left vs. Right, and capitalism vs. communism. It is only natural that Baha’is growing up within the American culture would lean towards an absolutist view of infallibility.
The question is, what view is supported by the Writings?
An exhaustive search of the Writings will not find a single authoritative statement in which Bahá’u’lláh uses the word infallible when referring to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the Guardian, or the Universal House of Justice. More than that, not even ‘Abdu’l-Bahá uses the word infallible to describe himself.
What Bahá’u’lláh says is “turn towards” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and “refer ye whatsoever ye understand not” to him.
These two phrases can be understood in a very wide range of ways, from “he is in charge now,” to “every syllable he utters and every twitch of his finger is divinely guided by Me.” That the Bahá’í Community has leaned towards the second interpretation is more of a statement about the community’s love for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá than it is an objective reading of the words on the page.
Most of the problems in the Bahá’í Community come down to the fact that we have inserted the word “infallible” into the words of Bahá’u’lláh, and then defined “infallible” as “inerrant” rather than “unchallengeable” or “guided” or simply “unable to fail” which is its literal meaning. As I said, being guided or unable to fail (in the long run) allows for missteps. Inerrancy mean you are incapable of making any mistake at all.
The simple fact is that neither “turn towards” nor “refer to” confer inerrancy. In any other context, the question of inerrancy would not even arise. Even within a religious context, it would take more than these words to confer inerrancy. After all, is Peter inerrant? Is Ali? And if Bahá’u’lláh had said “turn towards the historian Nabil,” would we be talking about infallibility at all? I don’t think so.
After all, it would only take three words for Bahá’u’lláh to establish ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s infallibility in any meaning of the word if He had intended to. “He is infallible.” That’s it. Yet they were never written. Here are His words in context:
“The Will of the divine Testator is this: It is incumbent upon the Aghsán, the Afnán and My Kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: “When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces towards Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.” The object of this sacred verse is none except the Most Mighty Branch” [‘Abdu’l‑Bahá].
“O people of the world! When the Mystic Dove will have winged its flight from its Sanctuary of Praise and sought its far-off goal, its hidden habitation, refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him Who hath branched from this mighty Stock.”
‘Abdu’l-Bahá himself never uses the word “infallible” to describe himself. He does make the claim that what his says “is the very truth,” and “whoso deviates from my interpretation is a victim of his own fancy.” Those are strong words, but they don’t establish infallibility in the sense of inerrancy. And if Bahá’u’lláh did not confer infallibility, then ‘Abdu’l-Bahá can’t claim it simply by being the one we are to turn towards.
So on one hand we have the command to turn towards ‘Abdu’l-Bahá for guidance, and on the other hand, we have very clear and compelling statement that no one shares in the Most Great Infallibility. Together they form a clear transfer of authority, even a promise of guidance, but not a transfer of infallibility or inerrancy.
I know this is hard to believe, since we’ve been told for over 100 years that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was infallible, but neither Bahá’u’lláh nor ‘Abdu’l-Bahá actually said that he was. And if ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was not infallible, then he could not transfer infallibility to the Guardian (who was never mentioned in Bahá’u’lláh’s writings) or the Universal House of Justice (which Bahá’u’lláh did not call infallible.)
Sit with that for a moment.
Bahá’u’lláh never said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was infallible. Period.
That should be the end of the discussion, but of course it isn’t. So let’s dig a little deeper.
Bahá’u’lláh clearly passed authority on to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá That is not in doubt, which is why this is not about questioning the Covenant. But one can have absolute authority and still be able to make mistakes. Every secular authority in the world functions without a claim of inerrancy.
Bahá’u’lláh’s claim of infallibility for Himself carries two implications. The first is that He is incapable of making a mistake – He is inerrant. The second is that His authority cannot be challenged. (When you read the passages about His infallibility, this is the aspect that is most clearly enunciated.) Unchallengeable authority can be passed from one authority to another. Inerrancy is intrinsic and essential to the station of the Manifestation, and cannot be conferred upon another.
We could say that “nothing is beyond the power of God,” and that is true. But having made the statement that He “hath no partner in the Most Great Infallibility,” He would need to be very specific about any exception to that claim.
Consider how Bahá’u’lláh describes the coming of the next Manifestation: “Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor.” He is very clear. There is no room for doubt or misinterpretation. If He intended for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to be considered absolutely infallible, then the logical place for Him to say so would be in the Book of the Covenant. But He doesn’t. All he says is “turn towards” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. “Turn towards.” That’s it. Adib Taherzadeh calls this a “magic phrase,” but Bahá’ís don’t believe in magic. They believe in being true to the Written Word of God.
One doesn’t need to believe in magic in order to accept a more flexible definition of infallibility. We turn towards ‘Abdu’l-Bahá because he is a wonderful human who is guiding the Community in the right direction, not because he is channeling the words of Bahá’u’lláh.
At this point, a lot of you will be feeling uncomfortable for two reasons. First, you will be wondering if it is “legal” for us to even be asking these questions. Are good Bahá’ís allowed to ask questions and disagree about what the Writings mean? Sadly, I’ve been told by many that it is “dangerous” to be a Bahá’í and let people know that you have these questions. I was told not to “fall on my sword” by discussing this issue publicly.
I am not interested in being in a religion that calls for independent investigation of the truth… except when it is uncomfortable. I don’t want to be in a religion where people are afraid to speak up for fear of a metaphoric sword.
If you agree, then keep reading. If not, stop now.
The second reason why the issue of infallibility makes us uncomfortable is that we absolutely love the Central Figures and institutions with all of our hearts, and we have associated that love with our vision of them as being perfect.
So let’s step back a moment.
Does one need absolute infallibility in order to have authority? Of course not. There are millions of kinds of authority in the world, and the only major ones who claim infallibility are the Pope, the Mormons, and the Bahá’ís.
But more importantly, does one need to be infallible before we can love, respect, admire, adore and follow them? Doesn’t the ability to make a mistake make a person even more noble when they choose not to?
Believing that Bahá’u’lláh bestowed ‘Abdu’l-Bahá with infallibility like a magic cloak of perfection may raise our perception of his station, but it diminishes our perception of him as a person and his power as an example. You don’t admire people for doing the right thing if they have no other choice. Superman is not brave for walking through fire – because he can’t be burned. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá is not an amazing human being if he was incapable of making a mistake. He would simply be God’s puppet. Is that a fair way to think of all of the sacrifices he made or the things he accomplished? How can he be an example, if we can make mistakes and he can’t.
So, having established that it is (or should be) legal to talk about infallibility, and that it is possible to love ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the administrative order even more, knowing that they are human and struggle just like we do, it is time to actually talk about our belief in infallibility and the effect it has had on the health of the Bahá’í Community.
Here are some of the issues that deserve to be addressed:
What do we gain by applying a more flexible understanding of infallibility?
What are the downsides of a rigid definition of infallibility?
If it is not in the Writings, how did we come to adopt such an absolutist view of infallibility?
An absolutist definition of infallibility does not allow for a single mistake. Can we point to any examples where ‘Abdu’l-Bahá or the Guardian were clearly mistaken?
What are the implications of admitting that mistakes were and can be made?
What should we do with this information?
Will I be punished for asking these questions?
Let’s start with:
What do we gain by applying a more flexible understanding of infallibility?
In the long run, the Community might be able to choose to allow women on the Universal House of Justice, allow gay marriage, and relaunch some of the many programs that were replaced by the institute process – but all of that is in the distant future. There are some important things we g
ain instantly as individuals when we become open to the possibility that not everything is carved in stone.
Flexibility for the Individual
The first thing we gain, and this is a biggie, is freedom of conscience.
If an absolutely infallible institution tells me that there should not be women on the Universal House of Justice, for example, it is not enough to accept and obey, I have to change what I believe. No matter what my heart says; no matter what my logic says; if I don’t agree, then I am wrong. And if the wisdom of this law is to be as “clear as the noonday sun,” and I still can’t see it, then there must be something wrong with me. So, I either have to get my head around it, conclude that there is something spiritually wrong with me, or live with the cognitive dissonance of believing two contradictory things at the same time. This is incredibly unhealthy, and ends up with thousands of Bahá’ís feeling that they are living a lie. This, in turn, affects their interactions with other Bahá’ís and their ability to share the teachings with others.
If, on the other hand, we accept that mistakes are possible, we can say “I disagree with this teaching, but I can obey it.” This may look like a way to create disunity, but in reality, it is a way to allow people to live in integrity.
Closely related to this is that when we don’t assume absolute infallibility, we gain the ability to ask questions. For example, is building buildings the best use of our funds? After 160 years, why aren’t more of Bahá’u’lláh’s Writing translated? Why aren’t we told how many registered Bahá’ís there are in the world?
These are valid questions, but if everything done is perfect, then to even ask a question about decisions is discouraged. Without questions, we can have no opinions of our own. Our opinion must simply be, “of course that is the right way to do things.” If we have no need for opinions, then we never have a reason to engage our critical thinking skills.
For example, in a recent FaceBook thread about the many individual initiatives that have been halted by the Universal House of Justice, one sincere Bahá’í said, “The Universal House of Justice has the infallibility conferred on it via the Covenant. Its decisions are not to be questioned….” But without questions, we can’t understand the reasoning behind the decisions to halt projects. Without knowing the reasons, we can’t predict what other individual initiatives might be considered unwise. The result is that people are hesitant to begin any projects outside of the institute process. No matter how wise the decisions may have been, without the right to question them, they become barriers to future action.
When we are allowed to question, have opinions, and think for ourselves, then we will also take a more mature, active role in the life of the community. Very young children don’t need to pay attention to how their parents organize their lives because they just assume that their parents are always right. If everything in the national and international community is organized perfectly, then Bahá’ís only need to think about what is going on in their own local community. The rest is being taken care of. And if things are not going well in the local community, then it can only be the fault of the local Bahá’ís. There is no need for transparency on the national or international level, because trust replaces transparency. But without transparency, there is not only no need to pay attention to what is happening, there is no ability to pay attention. This hinders the individual’s right and responsibility to have a “world embracing vision.”
Advantages for the Community
Those are things we gain as individuals. As a community, something we gain by letting go of infallibility is that we will not be written off as a cult by people who are familiar with religious history. People are rightly concerned when they hear religious leaders claim that they cannot make a mistake and must be obeyed without question. This is a major barrier for people who truly believe in the independent investigation of the truth. For many, it is a deal breaker. It is perceived as a kind of magical thinking that doesn’t belong in a religion dedicated to the harmony of science (and reason) and religion.
Letting go of infallibility also means that we no longer have to tie ourselves into pretzel knots trying to explain some of the prophecies made or statements made about various scientific subjects. We lost a lot of credibility when we claimed that there would be world peace by the end of the 20th century. For a while, we pretended that it was “more or less” achieved during the “century of light,” but recent events make any claim of a united world absurd. So now some say “it wasn’t really a century,” while others quietly pretend the prophecy never happened. (I’ll return to this later.)
Letting go of infallibility also means that we can become relevant in the 21st century. If things written between 1892 and 1957 are scrutinized word by word to form the basis of every future policy and plan, then the whole idea of a living religion that changes to meet the needs of the time gets turned into stone tablets. Yes, much of the guidance is timeless – but much of it seems hopelessly anchored to a world that no longer exists. Will we, for example, still be reading King James versions of the Writings 900 years from now?
What are the Downsides of a Rigid Definition of Infallibility?
Put simply, the dangers of believing that an institution is infallible when it isn’t are far greater than the dangers of not believing an institution is infallible when it actually is. An infallible institution does not fear or resent being questioned. It welcomes the clash of differing opinions even when it believes it is right. But an institution that believes it deserves unquestioned loyalty when it isn’t infallible can cause great harm.
Even if the structure envisioned by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá would have been absolutely infallible, the loss of the Guardian means that what we currently have is not that structure. An element of humility on the part of the institution would be appropriate.
One of the greatest dangers of believing in infallibility is that it makes it impossible to course-correct once a policy is instituted because belief in infallibility creates a bubble.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Universal House of Justice IS infallible, and they launch a program that is very successful in South America, Africa and Asia, but is a disappointment in Europe and North America. It is still a great program because it is NOT failing in the majority of the world. Globally, it is infallible. But…
What will the Bahá’í Communities of North America do? They know the plan is perfect, so they look for and record every small success, spin mediocre progress as victory, and downplay or ignore every failure when they send their reports to the World Center.
Now, the Universal House of Justice says that it is infallible, but not omniscient. It says that it relies on getting accurate information when making its decisions. (Ignoring the questionable logic of this for a moment) this means that the Universal House of Justice will have inaccurate information about the success of its plan. It will, therefore, not do anything to change the plan to make it more suitable to North America.
In other words, simply believing in infallibility can cause mistakes to be made.
Infallibility Creep
Udo Schaffer, a brilliant Bahá’í scholar, author of A Light Shineth in the Darkness, and frequent representative of the Faith at UN conferences, wrote an excellent analysis of the Infallibility of the Universal House of Justice, and argued that it is infallible, but only within its sphere of responsibility. In the Will and Testament, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá made the House of Justice the creator of laws. At the time Schaffer’s article was written, the only actual legislation it had done was the creation of the Continental Board of Counsellors.
“Authoritative interpretation is the exclusive prerogative of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Guardian, while infallible legislation is the function of the Universal House of Justice.”
– The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 517-518
Note: legislation is not the same as administration, creating plans or giving guidance. Those are executive and advisory functions.
Yet from an absolutist perspective, every dotted “i” and crossed “t” are unquestionably perfect. Sadly, even though Schaffer’s article was published in a respected Bahá’í periodical, he asked me not to refer to it in any of my writings while he was alive for fear of reprisal. Think about that. “For fear of reprisal.” This is where belief in absolute infallibility leads. (He has since passed.)
“Trickle-Down Infallibility”
This “infallibility creep” leads to another real danger to the community – the belief that ALL decisions made by Bahá’í institutions are perfect because mistakes will be corrected by the infallible overseer.
In a conversation with a member of an NSA. I heard about a decision that I thought must be one of the worst I had ever encountered. When asked about it, the NSA member said, in essence, “I know we were right, because we sent our minutes to the World Center, and they didn’t correct us.”
Believing that someone else will magically correct any of your mistakes can lead to truly awful behavior. If you haven’t heard stories of individuals being wounded by decisions made by National Assemblies, you have not been listening.
When you think you are infallible, it is really upsetting when people question your decisions. The temptation to punish them for doing so (after all, you know they are wrong) can be very great. It causes us to lean towards fundamentalism and a legalistic approach to the Teachings.
How Did We Get Here?
If it is not in Bahá’u’lláh’s Writings, how did we come to believe that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was inerrant?
There are several paths that led us here. First, the early believers loved ‘Abdu’l-Bahá so much that they often believed that He was the Manifestation himself. One of the early American Bahá’ís, Juliet Thompson, wrote a book, I, Mary Magdalen as though sitting at the feet of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá were equivalent to sitting with Christ.
Feeding this worshipful attitude towards Him was the early publication of The Tablet of the Branch. Early Bahá’ís believed that this was written by Bahá’u’lláh about ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and that belief persists to today. Yet any objective reader will readily realize that it is a description of the Manifestation Himself. It was written in the very early years of His Revelation explaining the station of the Manifestation. His son was only 19 years old at the time. It is highly unlikely that Bahá’u’lláh would write this about His young son, and then remain silent about it for the rest of His life. Meanwhile, even the Guardian gives Bahá’u’lláh the following titles: the “ ‘Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse’ and the ‘Branch grown out of His roots,’… To Him Haggai had referred as the ‘Desire of all nations,’ and Zachariah as the ‘Branch’ Who ‘shall grow up out of His place,’ and ‘shall build the Temple of the Lord.’”
Then came the publication of Bahá’í World Faith, in which a poor translation added “I am infallible” within one of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s talks. This, and many other unauthenticated passages and poor translations have been removed from all subsequent authorized publications, but the memory remains.
So why did the Guardian say that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was infallible? Was there some dark, nefarious reason to do so? No. First of all, he is infallible in some definitions of the word, just not inerrant. But also, I think the young Shoghi Effendi truly believed that the grandfather he dearly loved was perfect. If you look at the Guardian as a human being rather than an infallible super-human, then it is all too easy to understand why, faced with an impossible task, he would uphold ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s infallibility, and thereby also establish his own authority within the Community.
BTW: A fallible ‘Abdu’l-Bahá cannot transfer infallibility onto the Guardian or the House of Justice, but a careful reading of the Will and Testament shows that He didn’t really do that anyway. He said they would receive “unerring guidance.” We all receive “unerring guidance” every time we read the Writings. Guidance, as I said before, allows for missteps. We all read the Writings and then, through misunderstanding or personal impulse, do something imperfect. This is one more reason to use a more flexible understanding of infallibility when we use the term.
Infallible or Unchallengeable?
Since I am trying to offer a more flexible understanding of infallibility, let me offer some support for that. Translations are tricky things. The word that is translated as “infallible” when it is used at all, can also be translated as “unchallengeable” or even “pure.” Authority can be unchallengeable without being infallible in the sense of inerrant. There is a famous quotation from a US Supreme Court Justice that says, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” Many of the writings about infallibility make much more sense when we use a different translation. The references to many past prophets having “conferred infallibility” make more sense, since it is possible to confer unchallengeable authority, but conferring inerrancy is more problematic. Are we really to believe that, aside from the Manifestations, there have been many “infallible” prophets? The stories we read about them show us struggling human beings who ultimately did the right thing, but made mistakes along the way. They are often referred to as “prophets not endowed with constancy.” A rigid, inerrant, definition of infallibility requires constancy.
Evidence of Mistakes
We tend to look at our history through rose-colored glasses and adjust what we think ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Guardian “really meant” based on what we know now.
For years, we all taught that humans evolved separately from the rest of the animal kingdom, based on what ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said in Some Answered Questions. Now that science tells us differently, we have gone back and rewritten what appeared at the time to be a clear statement.
The promise that the world would be unified and at peace by the end of the 20th Century was the inspiration for a great deal of teaching work, but it never came. At first, we said that it had “essentially” happened because there were no major wars between countries. Then we said that “century” didn’t mean 100 years. Then we stopped talking about it.
The Faith lost a lot of credibility and a lot of followers because of this failed prophecy. We can say that we simply misunderstood the prophecy, but that means we could be misunderstanding a lot of other things too.
Then there is this: “There will be an equilibrium of interests, and a condition will be established which will make both rich and poor comfortable and content. This will be an eternal and blessed outcome of the glorious twentieth century which will be realized universally.”
Economic inequality is greater now than when ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was chatting with Andrew Carnegie.
But perhaps ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s most glaring failure was in creating a detailed blueprint for the Bahá’í world that was to last 1000 year, and yet never actually came into existence as described. You can say that it was “God’s Will” that the system He said should be built never was, but then you have to concede that it might be “God’s Will” that other aspects of that system, like no women on the House of Justice, or conferred infallibility, might not need to be as described.
The gap between the system we were told to create, and the one we were able to create is so vast that no objective observer would say they were the same thing. Even if the original system, with its checks and balances, was capable of being called “infallible,” the system we have now, with virtually no checks on power, would benefit from some humility.
It would be like saying that we could get rid of the President and the Supreme Court, leaving Congress to make laws, enforce them and appoint all judges, and claiming that we were still following the Constitution because we still had elections.
The Guardian
Shoghi Effendi was an amazing person. He did wonderful things for the Faith. But was he inerrant? An overwhelming amount of the guidance we received from The Guardian was actually written by his secretary, yet we treat it as infallible because it was signed by him. So here is a letter about the interpretation of a passage – clearly within his realm of responsibility:
“The same holds true of the statement of Bahá’u’lláh in the Íqán, regarding transmutation of copper into gold after seventy years, under certain conditions.
“We as Bahá’ís must assume that, as He had access to all knowledge, He was referring to a definite physical condition which theoretically might exist. Because we don’t know what this condition is in scientific terms, does not refute Bahá’u’lláh’s statement at all.
“The Guardian hopes that Mr. … will not let so small a thing stand in his path. The principle of Faith is to accept anything the Manifestation of God says, once you have accepted Him as being the Manifestation. That is really the crux of the whole matter. It is a question of confidence.”
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, March 14, 1955)
We now know that gold is produced by the collision of neutron stars. There is no conceivable condition under which copper would turn into gold over the course of seventy years. What we also know is that the number seventy is used in both Bahá’í and Islamic scripture to symbolize things that take a lifespan to accomplish. Bahá’u’lláh is clearly suggesting that the wisdom of a lifespan can be gained in the twinkling of an eye, not that copper buried underground will slowly turn into gold. It should be troubling to note that an “infallible” source of guidance is requiring unquestioned belief in a scientific impossibility rather than accepting that there are things they don’t understand.
Of course, the other glaring mistake that the Guardian made, that we have spent 70+ years trying to explain away, is his failure to write a will or to indicate in any way what the Bahá’ís should do after his passing. Rúḥíyyih Khánum was 47 at the time of his passing. They had been trying to conceive for 20 years. He had known (or should have known) for at least five years that the likelihood of having an heir was vanishingly small, and yet he made no provisions whatsoever.
The argument is that he couldn’t say anything that contradicted what was in the Will and Testament. There are two problems with that. First, it means that everything we’ve done since then is a contradiction of the Will and Testament, and second, he could have said that. “If I die without an heir, there will no longer be a Guardian. It will be up to the House of Justice, when elected, to create a system that can function without a Guardian, and to appoint Hands of the Cause.”
There. A two-sentence Will that would have prevented years of confusion and covenant breaking. But according to those who should know, he did not say or write anything to protect us from what he knew was coming eventually.
Love him. Respect him. But when his secretary says that homosexuality is a question of morality rather than psychology, shouldn’t we be allowed to treat it like the statement that copper can literally turn into gold in seventy years?
The Universal House of Justice
As I mentioned before, the House of Justice claims infallibility while also admitting that it is not omniscient.
“Universal House of Justice is not omniscient, and the friends should understand that there is a difference between infallibility and omniscience. Like the Guardian, the House of Justice wants to be provided with facts when called upon to render a decision, and like him it may well change its decision when new facts emerge, or in light of changed conditions at some point in the future. We have found nothing in the writings of Shoghi Effendi which suggests that the House of Justice would on any occasion reach a “wrong decision.”
This is a clear argument for a more flexible understanding of infallibility. Think about the logic for a moment. If you can make a decision based on incorrect information and then reverse it when more information is given, then the first decision can’t really be considered a perfect decision, can it? If you need to know everything in order to be infallible, and you admit that you don’t know everything, how does the claim of absolute infallibility hold up? If the claim were: “The Universal House of Justice will always make the best decision possible with the information available,” then the logic works. This is the logic of guidance as opposed to inerrancy. There is a lot of unknown and unknowable information in the world. Sadly, the logic does not support its statement that it is incapable of making a wrong decision.
What Are the Implications?
Once we acknowledge the fact that mistakes have been made, and can continue to be made in the future, what do we do with this information?
First, we take a deep breath.
Then we adopt an attitude of humility.
Then we joyfully become open to the idea that the Writings and the facts at hand point to a more flexible, open-minded understanding of the nature of infallibility as manifested in Bahá’í Institutions.
With this more open-minded perspective, we can give ourselves permission to think and act for ourselves, and to speak what is in our hearts rather than hiding our true feelings about the direction the Community is heading.
Once again, this is not about questioning the position of authority, it is about questioning the need to agree with authority. We can obey without agreeing. We can also disobey, as long as we don’t interfere with the rest of the Community. We can decide which of the pieces of guidance we receive we want to commit to following – without feeling guilty for not doing everything (or anything).
We can stop beating ourselves (and others) over the head with guidance and policies we don’t agree with. It was our hearts that brought us to Bahá’u’lláh. So it is our hearts that we should follow in choosing what we do and who we interact with.
There are currently, in the US, more disaffected and inactive Bahá’ís than there are active Bahá’ís. If we adopt an attitude of humility and open our hearts to them, they just might want to hang out with us – maybe not at Feast; probably not in a Ruhi Circle, but somewhere fun.
Let us get back to the business of loving one another instead of tip-toeing around laws and difficult subjects. The Bahá’í Administration is not a police force. They can’t send us to physical jail, and they can’t even send us to spiritual jail. The worst they can do is take away our administrative rights. Maybe losing one’s administrative rights would be the beginning of living a Bahá’í life rather than the end.
(BTW: What would we say about a country that denied the right to vote to homosexuals? Is this the world we want to build?)
Where Do We Go to from Here?
Honestly, I don’t know.
Talk about this with your friends. You don’t have to say whether you agree or disagree, just say that I raised the question and see how they respond.
Watch this space. Will the Bahá’í Administration consider this letter an appropriate sharing of one person’s concerns and perspectives, or will it be perceived as an attack? Are questions like this allowed? Will I be shunned? Unenrolled? (Yes, that is a thing.) Will my business be boycotted? Or will it just be ignored?
What happens next will tell you what kind of community you currently live in. Think about what kind of community you want to live in, then work for it.
With sincere Bahá’í love,
Justice Saint Rain
This is probably one of the clearest channels of Love, Understanding and Acceptance I have encountered in my 45 years as. Baha’i. Thank you Justice for my newly found freedom. Linda
You have obviously given this a lot of thought. And it is very thought-ful. Thank you. It is appreciated here.
I have been a Baha’i for 55 years (on again off again) that is, withdrawn and resigned then reapplied again for many reasons. Chief among my reasons had to do with blatant hypocrisy.
This is my story. In 1971 Florida I was a college student. Mass teaching was going on, and I caught the spiritual fever that the soul stirring words of Baha’u’llah engendered within me. He spoke truth and reason in a way a catholic youth like me could understand, and as a peace/love hippie like me felt deeply. I was “in”.
In my new Baha’i community, I was just 21 and # 9 adult. Yep, a baby Baha’i elected to an LSA. Within a few months I was on a District Teaching Committee. By the summer I shipped out on a travel teaching assignment by the UHJ directive and instituted by the USA NSA to Samoa.
Almost at once I was immersed in the hidden truth of hypocrisy. On our way to our assignment, we had a teaching gathering. I was to bring a local speaker to give us guidance. We were late to the meeting. I was pulled aside by a youth group leader and yelled at. I was in shock! What had I joined? I would pull myself together believing that is what my new Faith expected. Do, do right, do NOT question and for God’s sake, do not think outside the box!
We had just one youth who was a second generation deepened Baha’i youth among the three of us. I believed that the 4 of us together were dedicated Baha’i teachers going to the villages in remote Samoan Islands to share this beautiful message. I6t would turn the 3 newest Baha’is did just that however our well deepened youth partner of a well-known respected Baha’i Americen family decided he needed his sexual free-for-all with the very open for it Samoan gals including a wive of native believers. Our mission was a failure. I was devastated.
I could go on and on with examples like this over all those years. The question of a lack of our growth is well explained by you Justice and by a very spiritually corrupt system peppered throughout. Unacknowledged and untreated these issues poison the spiritual waters of the Faith. This must be addressed in a “restorative justice” forum within the American Baha’i community. NOW!
Hi Bob, I truly feel for you and appreciate your honesty.
I resigned in September of 2024, after almost 39 years of devoted service. I gave the faith the best years of my life. I received a lot of very negative experiences, primarily that my five adult children became estranged from me over the last ten years. There was absolutely no assistance to be had from the NSA of Canada. They gaslighted me telling me to just focus on myself. The concept of family unity was completely disregarded.
In my opinion the faith is run like a cult and the active followers are drones. It’s awful.
Do take care, Shirley
Trying very hard not to be a drone here. Our larger community {very few believers in a number of tiny communities in a geographically large county and huge cluster and nearly all of us are of retirement age} was offered the Meaningful Conversations program and said OK because we weren’t scared off by the idea of training. Other, more viable, communities responded with “We’ve been Baha’is for 50 years, ‘we don’t need no stinking training.'” It has totally revitalized our area, although only 3 of us are doing all the work and working without a net. It’s a part of the NSA’s {USA} social media initiative, and I guess just the fact that it incorporates a lot of tech stuff is enough to keep a lot of older believers away. Have we had a million declarations? No. Have we helped create the germ of a community that will stand fast against the winds of the destruction of the Old World Order {which seems to be accelerating as the midterms approach}. I think we have. If you want something you never had, try something you’ve never done. And move here if you want to see some people being obedient, taking advantage of a new direction, and trying their best to be neither drones nor cult members.
PS We actually have a small Ruhi program going, but I really think 2 was written with the assumption that participants in 1 would all be Baha’is when we got to 2. So we’re skipping ahead to 4. For money, that assumption is an element that makes the program less effective in the West and I wish someone “official” would address this. Some of the later materials that address social engagement seem like they’d be the logical place to move to after 1 with a group only incompletely sold on the Baha’i Faith.
Thanks for going to the trouble of writing this. It’s refreshing to read frank and open opinions.
I think it’s important for Baha’is to continue to independently investigate truth after becoming Baha’is. And discuss different subjects at meetings without fear of upsetting people. Open and frank consultation helps people open up about what they really feel
I so agree with you! Thank you for this article!
Beautifully expressed… Thank you for bringing this topic up for consultation. Abdul-Baha said we should consult about everything. I always understood that the infallibility of the UHJ rests on its ability to take a decision and later, to reconsider and change its decision… thus its is able to.weigh its decisions against the resulting reality. I am hopeful that the determinations regarding membership on the House of Justice and the coldness felt by our gay friends and family members will be revisited with wisdom based on love, equality, justice and the promotion of unity.
Thank you, Justice, for sharing your deep thoughts. Like you, I struggle with the questions of women representation in the Faith, including membership of the Universal House of Justice, and the question of acceptance of homosexuality. Here are the workarounds that I have done inside my head.
On the question of women’s membership of the UHJ, I believe that women will in due course be on the UHJ – an is always intended to be. And that the reason that is as obvious as the sun at high noon is that the UHJ rulings need to be obeyed as if they are infallible. This requires Baha’is to look up to the UHJ.
I live in a country that ranks 4th in the world on women’s equality (New Zealand), so women on the UHJ seems absurdly obvious to me. But, if I was from a country where women are regarded as second rate citizens at best, then I might look at women on the UHJ as evidence that I should not esteem them. Even the USA, which vaunts gender equality, has voted for a mere 25% of the Senate to be women, and none to be president. Looking over the fence, it feels like many voters still have doubts about the capacity of women to lead.
The NSA and LSA were originally written in the Faith as the National House of Justice, and the Local House of Justice. The name was temporarily changed to not cause tension with local authorities. And there are Baha’i references that men should be on the “Houses” of Justice. But there is a translation issue. The reference to “men” uses the word “rijal” which can be translated as men, or it can be translated as notables.
When Abdu’l Baha first went to America in 1909 I think, he was asked if women could be on the US NSA, and he said no. But when he was asked again on a later trip in 1913 he said yes.
I note that neither Abdu’l Baha nor Shoghi Effendi gave any clear reasoning. They just vaguely referred to the writings. And it seems their comments were deliberately vague. If they said women could be on the UHJ, but only after the world changed enough to esteem an institution with women in a position of such authority, then it may have had the same effect of undermining that esteem.
So that is my mental workaround on women on the UHJ.
As for homosexuality, I have real issues. I have argued with religious leaders of other faiths that the Baha’i Faith values unity in diversity as a primary value. That LGBTQ+ is a personal issue between the individual and God, and none of my business. My priority to is love and accept them for who they are. The writings have a disparaging view of masturbation, but it is absolutely none of my business if some masturbates or not.
That still leaves a big question about the views of the Faith on homosexuality. The writings don’t say it is wrong to be homosexual, only to sexually act on that impulse, in the same way that it expects chastity before marriage for heterosexual couples.
But, like you Justice, it still feels wrong to me that a loving homosexual couple cannot openly live their love within the Baha’i guidelines. I note that Abdu’l Baha describes homosexuality like an illness. But the science does not support that, especially for men, where homosexual tendencies are most likely programmed at the 7-month point in the womb. For women, there is more evidence that women who have been poorly treated by men, seek safe love and companionship in same sex relationships. How can such love be wrong? There is something that Abdu’l Baha made a vague reference to that things look different from a God perspective. I can’t comment on that. There is not enough detail to think that one through.
So, my personal workaround as a Baha’i is to love and respect LGBTQ+ individuals, and their life choices are entirely their own.
This is a good natured, broad yet concise in the points made, assessment of the condition of Baha’ullah’s religion as it presently exists in Western countries. Most importantly your comments are kind, considerate and inoffensive but also necessarily thought provoking.
Well done Mr Justice St Rain and happy 70th birthday.
Thank you for this analysis, Justice. I have stepped away from the Faith, as you know, since I am finding it hard to feel love and acceptance from the institutions, and often from even individual believers. The Master was the epitome of love, but not “turned to” often enough, in my uninformed opinion.
Wow, I am so sad to hear that…I would never have made any issue about your situation. I am said if our Assembly at the time played any role in how you feel today.
I love your discussion of the term infallibility, especially as a former Catholic. I’ve been a Baha’i for over 40 years. I’ve had similar questions but I think you’ve addressed my concerns well! Thank you!
Happy birthday Justice!
Thank you for your courage to delve into this arena of infallibility. It has pushed me to examine how I have found my way to a reasonable path, though there may be illusions in my understanding. The Prayers and Spiritual Writings guide my spirit, while the basic Teachings help me deal with my struggles. We have to be realistic about the smooth spots, blocks, and the undeveloped spots of our own nature.
We are called to “reconcile our differences, and with perfect unity and peace, abide beneath the shadow of the Tree of His care and loving-kindness.” Along the way we must struggle with our own nature.
When I have wondered about the wisdom of some guidance from the UHJ, I remember that these servants have limitations also, and they must guide souls that live in every corner of a complex and mixed up world. Of course the guidance will not sit well or easily on all hearts and minds! The tests are part of the whole process of coming into unity.
When the Ruhi classes became the favored teaching process, I first experienced them out of my country (US) where some Baha’is could barely read. This helped me see how they can break down a barrier between scholars and barely educated people. I eventually completed about eight books in the States. Not only did I find new pathways to Baha’i concepts, but traveling to classes led me to meet many Baha’is in my own area that I would rarely meet otherwise. Firesides and 1:1 teaching have always been an option!
In summary, I am not unsettled by the question of infallibility, for it is up to us to apply the Baha’i Teachings and UHJ guidance as best we can. For 40 years, I’ve seen many shifts in my own nature, understanding, and actions.
I have lots of work left for this life and beyond. The Unknowable Essence, God, will guide us until we understand Unity and Perfect Love.
Thank you for this. I’ve often thought the Writings translated to the King James kind of writing makes it difficult for the average person to relate to. I’m one of the only Baha’is I know without a college degree. I’m 73…my kids were raised in the Faith and left. My best friend of 40 yrs who is a Baha’i is gay and we were active Baha’is together for 30 years. Her 3 adult children aren’t in the Faith for obvious reasons. I never felt such loss and grief as when she took a partner. We are still Best friends.
Thank you again for this.
I have had these same thoughts for several years now and have chosen to be inactive. I became a Baha’i in 1969 because I felt it just made sense. I was a devoted follower, raising a family and very active in community life. It wasnt until my later years that I started questioning the ‘laws’ that said it’s ok to be gay, just don’t act on it. THAT never made sense. No women on the UHJ definitely didn’t make sense, burial within an hour of travel distance or absolutely no alcohol whatsoever. So.. rather than feeling like a hypocrite I just walked away from my
Communities. I still do believe in Baha’u’llah’s teachings and try in my personal life to live them.
Thank you for your courage and honesty in writing one of the best essays I’ve read in a long time. In the conflict resolution work that I do one of the first steps is to broaden the frame to allow for more choices. There are always a variety of possible good solutions. Most people may not realize that the House asked for presentations on different teaching programs from around the world. Ruhi was chosen from that group.
Once a decision is made the decision needs to be adopted by all parties. What Baha’is are missing is the feedback loop. There is no allowance for a diversity of action and no way to provide meaningful input that doesn’t involve being accused of disunity. Trust is built through risk. You have to allow someone to act outside of your direct control. Works with kids, employees and religious communities. Very simply, we stopped trusting our members. We became a one script community. Where there’s no choice, there’s no trust.
Revitalizing the American Bahá’i Community
I apologize for the length of my comments. But I couldn’t help myself and I have wanted to say these things for a long time.
First, Justice, I want to commend you for your audacity, your courage, and your thoughtfulness in raising issues that are among those which have suppressed the growth of our faith and discouraged many believers. Your essay focuses on infallibility. However, that is only one cause for our current state. I would like to discuss other issues that are also causal factors for the decline in growth. If we are to be honest, and if we sincerely care about the progress of our faith, we must raise these issues that are inhibiting our growth.
This is an issue of honesty. Are we, and I include our institutions, truly being honest about our condition? Without that honesty little progress can be made.
I want to address our condition from the standpoint of our culture, which is, I believe, a culture of caution and obedience, acceptance of authority, a form of authoritarianism, rather than a culture of grass roots initiative, enthusiasm and experimentation. I will not attempt to either agree or disagree with your analysis of infallibility and will leave that to those more scholarly than myself. However, the perception of, and response to infallibility may be a root cause of what has become a culture of obedience and cautious conformity. It is that culture that is strangling our community.
Creative Chaos or Conformity
All living things and groups of living things, when in their stage of rapid growth, create a degree of chaos or disorder. Organisms that were once energetic and growing but are now dying become “orderly” and stagnant. A dead body is orderly. A toddler creates chaos. Puppies create chaos. Companies that are rapidly growing are always in a degree of creative chaos. If you want significant growth you must accept the dynamism of a chaotic culture. Bureaucracies fight to maintain control and impose order assuring the slow death of the organization. Leaders need courage, the courage to embrace the confusion of growth.
I served on the National Teaching Committee when there was excitement, large scale enrollments and mass teaching. It was joyfully chaotic. Of course there were problems. Change and growth generate problems.
I was at Dillon South Carolina during the mass teaching campaign and was thrilled when the House of Justice proclaimed in 1971, that we had finally entered the age of Entry by Troops in the United States. They wrote:
“Joyfully announce Bahá’í world process entry by troops rapidly accelerating United States evidenced by enrollment 8000 new believers South Carolina course six weeks campaign raising number new believers entire country 13000 since Ridván. Process gathering momentum. Indications similar development occurring new areas North South America. May valiant workers Faith toiling throughout world gain confidence added strength these uplifting victories won in His name reap similar harvest homefronts all continents (Signed) Universal House of Justice.”
And, in February 14, 1972:
“We were delighted with the information contained in your semiannual statistical report. The believers in the United States are to be applauded for opening, during the past six-month period, 642 localities to the Faith and enrolling 3,053 believers.
“We note that the new teaching methods you have developed, in reaching the waiting masses, have substantially influenced the winning of your goals, and we urge the American Bahá’ís, one and all, newly enrolled and believers of long standing, to arise, put their reliance in Bahá’u’lláh and armed with that supreme power, continue unabated their efforts to reach the waiting souls, while simultaneously consolidating the hard-won victories. New methods inevitably bring with them criticism and challenges no matter how successful they may ultimately prove to be. The influx of so many new believers is, in itself, a call to the veteran believers to join the ranks of those in this field of service and to give wholeheartedly of their knowledge and experience. Far from standing aloof, the American believers are called upon now, as never before, to grasp this golden opportunity which has been presented to them, to consult together prayerfully and widen the scope of their endeavors.”
With loving Bahá’í greetings,
The Universal House of Justice
Many Bahá’ís today are unaware of these messages or the facts and process which they reflect. Rather than “continuing unabated their efforts…” the process was deliberately halted because was it was frightening. It appeared to be “out of control” and our institutions genuinely did not know what to do with the influx of these believers and with the process and the characters involved. We disobeyed the guidance of the House to “continue unabated.” We needed a training process, some institute process, and a system of integrating new believers. But we did not need to stop. We stopped out of fear. Momentum turned to inertia.
Don’t Deny the Facts:
For those who don’t know, my comments follow from my forty-five years consulting with major corporations to improve their culture, to improve employee engagement and the quality of their products and processes. That improvement is always founded on the recognition of reality, the acceptance of facts, the use and understanding of statistics, and open dialogue to discover root causes and solutions to problems. Improvement can only follow that open and honest dialogue. It is largely absent in the Bahá’í community because the facts are painful and easily avoided by just doing what we think we have been told to do. “Just do the core activities and all will be fine.” Really? I can’t tell you have many times I have heard members of the community say “This is what the House has told us to do.” That an similar comments end dialogue, end creative thinking and self-reflection.
I joined the Faith in 1968. Upon graduating from college, I moved to the South to participate in the teaching work. If a Bahá’í from that time was suddenly transported to this day they would not recognize the Faith. Today the Bahá’í community is enmeshed in language and models that did not exist. When I became a Bahá’í we studied Advent of Divine Justice, World Order, the Kitab-i-Iqan and other Writings. Today everyone is directed to Ruhi book this and Ruhi book that. Ruhi is not mentioned in the Bahá’í Writings and is a human construct of questionable value. The Faith has been in decline since we became devoted to the Ruhi method. Study the data!! The method originated in Columbia and perhaps the method was well suited to the culture of Columbia. But it is very ill suited to the culture of the United States. It violates the well-researched principles of adult learning. Adults learn best, not by following something prescribed by an authority, but by calling on their own experience, by their own initiative, by exploring and experimenting, and by feeling that they are in control of their experience. Ruhi requires submission that many of us find aversive.
I read the Annual Reports issued following our national conventions. The opening page of every annual report is always a congratulations, praising the community for victories. These victories are almost always new structures (reflection gatherings, clusters, etc.) none of which are components of the Baha’i Administrative order. I find these reports distressfully dishonest. If they were honest they would begin with a simple statement that “The following year was another year with no growth in community members or Assemblies. Once again, our methods have proven unsuccessful and demand change.”
The numbers, although they are presented in a way that does not make the reality clear, are in fact clearly an indictment of our methods. Many will disagree with me, but you can’t disagree with the fact that the expansion of the Faith ended with the promotion of Ruhi. If a business instituted a growth process that produced these results the management team would have been replace years ago. We can continue on this path if you choose to assume “this is what the House wants us to do” and ignore the results.
When I was on the National Teaching Committee Hand of the Cause Dr. Muhajir, famous for his teaching work, visited Atlanta and met with Assembly members from the metro area. He sat quietly and asked the Assembly members to tell him about their teaching work. One spoke about their public gatherings. Another spoke about their notices in the newspaper. Another spoke of their deepenings. He listened respectfully and when they were all done, he shocked the group by saying “Now, tell me about your teaching work.” Everyone looked puzzled. No one had mentioned enrollments. Dr. Muhajir said “If you are teaching, then a student is learning. If they are not learning than you are not teaching. If they are learning of the Bahá’í Faith, then they become Bahá’ís. Now, tell me about who has been taught the Faith. This is the meaning of teaching. If there are no or few enrollments you must change methods.” We now seem incapable of changing methods, of innovating, because we do not honestly study the facts and the result of our methods.
Release and Encourage Leadership
Leadership is not a word we hear in our discussions or writings. Most Baha’is believe that it is a concept of the Old World Order and has been replaced by Assemblies and committees. This is wrong headed. Assemblies and the process of consultation is the new process of decision making and judging and has replaced the individual decision making of kings, dictators and authoritarian managers. Small group decision making produces superior results when practiced with skill. But leadership is something entirely different. Leadership is about emotion, it is about turning decisions into action, generating excitement toward a goal. If you study the times when the Faith grew rapidly you will find that we had dynamic leaders. These were sometimes Hands of the Cause, Members of the Boards of Councilors, or just individuals who took initiative and set the example. They were capable of standing in front of an audience and speaking in a manner that motivated the friends to action. Decisions without motivation to action are useless. Leaders call upon other individuals to arise, they challenge others to action toward a worthy goal.
Why do we need leadership? Because we are human, we are not a committee. From the time Alexander rode Bucephalus along the line of his assembled warriors, his “Companions” before the battle of Gaugamela, extolling them to victory, to glory, to immortality, every successful leaders has understood the dynamic between leader and those led, the necessity of energizing followers to action. It cannot be done by a committee no matter how brilliant and how perfect their decision. A decision is inert. It is not alive. Leaders generate the energy that wins victories.
Our Institutions, for many years, have appeared to be terrorized by any individual who appears to provide leadership. Assemblies have very deliberately stopped and suppressed leaders who motivated others, particularly youth. This is due to their failure to understand the essential nature of leadership. I remember Hand of the Cause Mr. Sears speaking eloquently and with great enthusiasm about the need to develop great orators, the need for training youth in the art of public speaking. He understood the dynamic of human motivation. We cannot progress if we do not understand the need for motivation and the essential nature of leadership. It is a complement to decision-making, not a substitute or threat.
I remember Jack McCants, who had been a Texas preacher, extolling the gathered of friends to arise, pounding the podium and with tears running down his cheek. I remember Councilor Dr. Ahmaddiyyeh who came from Belize to Atlanta to assist with the teaching work, who spoke so emotionally that it brought tears to our eyes, and he went with us to small towns in Georgia to directly share the Message of our Faith. I remember others who were capable of lifting us up, moving us to action. This is leadership and it is desperately needed now. We need more than decisions and plans. We need to be energized and that can only be done by another human being.
Restore Large Scale Conferences
Most Baha’is, and Baha’i youth in particular, are exposed to a very small cohort of Baha’is. Too often the youth lack positive role models and friendships. Youth need friends and will find them wherever they can.
In years past we had large scale conferences both for youth and adults. For many of us these were life-changing events. It was the first time we heard famous Bahá’i artists perform. We sang along, thousands holding hands and joining in to sing familiar songs. And of course there we speakers who inspired us to action, who challenged us to arise and dedicate our lives to the Faith. It is hard to judge the power of the energy created by these conferences. What we do know is that the dates of these conferences is associated with the expansion of the Faith. Energy produces action and action in the Cause results in expansion.
It is my impression that these conferences were stopped because there were “problems.” Youth can misbehave and no institution wants to accept responsibility for that misbehavior. However, I believe the benefits far outweighed the problems. How many young people met their future spouse at these conference? I know of several. How many new Baha’is were brought to these conferences and experienced the Bahá’i world in a way that they could not see in their local communities.
In 1970 myself and a few other Baha’is were street teaching in Henderson, North Carolina. Walking on the street we met Sandy. I can clearly remember Sandy’s expression, her mouth dropped open, as we explained the Jesus Christ had returned as the Glory of God and called for complete racial and religious unity. She couldn’t believe it. We were planning on traveling to Evanston, IL for the national youth conference. I invited her to ride with me. She did. She was transformed. She married Charles Bullock. They pioneered to Africa and formed a beautiful and dedicated Bahá’i family. My daughter met her husband at a youth conference. There are hundreds if not thousands of these seemingly small and personal stories. But they are essential to creating the dynamic fabric of the Bahá’i community.
In more recent years I worked with the youth organization AIESEC for four years (pro-bono). There are approximately thirty-five thousand active members and more than a million alumni. I was introduced to them by the European Baha’i Business Forum (EBBF). AIESEC was created after World War II with the intention of creating positive international experiences for young people worldwide and reducing the chance of war. The members are primarily business and economics students at universities. They elect local leaders and those leaders elect a national leadership committee, and those national committees meet at global conferences and elect and international committee and a president. I attended several of their conferences and travelled to their headquarters in Rotterdam where I led a design team, redesigning what they called “the AIESEC experience.”
Note this: AIESEC is and always has been student run. There are no adult managers. They invite some adults to advise them on some matters. Member participation in AIESEC is an exercise in learning leadership. They practice group decision making, managing elections, recruiting new members, working with business partners who recruit AIESEC members to their firms. Major international companies like DHL and PWC both support and recruit from AIESEC. Sitting with these young leaders in a conference room in Rotterdam was one of my most rewarding experiences as a consultant.
You haven’t experienced youthful energy like that of an AIESEC conference. There are songs that they all know and they will break out singing at almost any moment. Attending the international conferences are youth leaders from all over the world. And… it is entirely managed by these youth and they have been doing it since 1948! If they can do it, please don’t tell me that we Baha’is cannot manage large conferences.
In summary, I believe the Bahá’i community can be re-energized and resume expansion. But, we have to change methods. We have to have the courage to do things differently.
Thank you, Larry, for this insightful contribution to the discussion. I agree with every word, and hope that someone somewhere will begin to listen.
I attended the St Louis conference a month after I declared. I heard Wm. Sears say that “one soul can illumine an entire continent.” I dedicated myself to becoming such a soul then and there. Great speakers can galvanize people’s faith without threatening the authority of the institutions.
My first wife was involved in organizing the Champaign Youth Conference just a few years later. They were told specifically to NOT talk about teaching, but rather to talk about preparation for careers in service. What a difference those few years made, as the fear of chaotic growth replaced the enthusiasm of the earlier successes.
From the mid 70s to the 90s a lot of the feet-dragging was done by the NSA. But in the 90s the NSA released The Vision of Race Unity and Two Wings of a Bird, and started a radio and TV proclamation campaign. Sadly, once the Institute Process was introduced, all proclamation efforts were halted. It is my understanding that that was at the request of the House of Justice. Since then, virtually every single individual or group initiative that is outside of the institute umbrella has been systematically dismantled.
So good to hear your response to Justin’s call. We are deeply involved in presenting the Faith from the stage. Even though we tried hard to work with the Baha’is in one major city in 2005, we had folks there prioritize a pizza party for youth over attending the first-ever full stage performance of The Seven Valleys (10 years of development) at the premier theatre in their town. Of course we can’t require them to come, but one event that can be rescheduled, should not take precedence over such a unique experience that was trying to serve both the Baha’i and non-Baha’i communities alike. It turned out to get major newspaper coverage with a full page reaching 80000 people and was quite a proclamation but not for the Baha’is, except for a few. I believe that was example of the lack of judgement and leadership for support of the arts.
Dear Marty, omg, I’m a singer and musician myself. Where can I watch that production? It’s not on YouTube… 🤷♀️ Many other thoughts about what all of you have shared so courageously and lovingly but my phone is dying. Sandra Maytan
Organizations that succeed value transparency and honesty. When we adopted the phrase “fear of failure finds no place,” we essentially began denying reality. No one wants to admit that they are not successful. Not addressing the facts on the ground led to frustration. Frustration led to disenfranchisement. Who wants to be part of an organization where they can’t make a meaningful contribution? Disenfranchisement leads to voluntary reductions. The numbers shrink. People need to be part of something bigger than themselves. The Faith provides that opportunity through service to mankind. The Words are powerful but action drives results.
Thank you for the article.
One important point that hasn’t been mentioned yet is that serving in the Universal House of Justice is a position of sacrificial servitude to the Cause, not a position of authority or power in a personal sense. The authority lies in the laws of the Faith or the covenant, not in individual power of each member of the House.
So as a woman and mother of young children, I find it a blessing that I would never be elected to such a sacrificial position that would require me to move my whole family to a new home and be completely devoted to such a strenuous job that I would not have much time or energy to devote to my children. Can you imagine the load that the members of the House of Justice carry ? When I went on pilgrimage and met them and shook their hands, I remember seeing exhausted, humble, tired, sleep deprived looking men who looked like they hadn’t had a vacation in months. I don’t remember any feeling of authority in them as people.
I think God is actually protecting women and their children by having this law, and the world just doesn’t quite understand that, because people are still trained to look at things through the eyes of hierarchy and leadership, not servitude. And since the education of children is one of the most meritorious of services, then a mother staying home with her child, in the sight of God, has equal value to the sacrifice a man on the house of Justice renders. Since the mother has milk and is biologically created to carry, birth, and nurture the child it makes sense. Of course she should advance in career and education as much as men, but perhaps not in physical sacrifice. Of course, it all depends on the purity of their hearts and why they are doing it in the first place, which only God knows.
As far as what has been mentioned about the Ruhi process and the way the community is structured, I do think Americans have a very black or white or rigid approach to the whole process because that’s just how American culture is. I think it’s a blueprint created for the whole world and may not fit that naturally into our culture. I don’t have many answers to this, but I hope the community can learn together and understand this better in how each culture can integrate into community life.
Re: “the major ones which claim infallibility” to that I would add that the Christian nationalists, the fanatics, the zealots, the extreme wing of ANY religion, but most often I have seen it in the Christian evangelicals. They claim infallibility due to DIRECT INDIVIDUAL messages and Revelations from God. I believe this is extremely dangerous, because it can be any random thought, taken as the word of God. It is religious psychosis. They could have an impulse to either bake an apple pie for their neighbor or declare them possessed of a demon. I have MANY Christians tell me that they have NO responsibility for the health of the Earth because “God is going to make a new Earth anyway,” and NO responsibility for climate change because God would “tell them” if fossil fuels were a problem. God conveniently doesn’t speak words into their brain which challenges their lifestyles.
Thank you so much for this well thought out and concise discussion for our individual study as well as consultation. I’d love to see this as well as other issues be discussed. I know I need to reread this in full as well as some of the well spoken comments.
And Happy Birthday to you as well.
Interesting discussions and much to reflect upon. I think all lovers of the Faith are saddened when we learn about the tests and trials faced by our fellow believers and my heart goes out to all those who have not felt loved, accepted or appreciated. I regard myself fortunate to have encountered the Faith as a young man some 50+ years and can relate to many of the isssues which are raised here. My blessings came in three ways. 1) I was introduced to the Baha’i teachings by a dynamic group of young people in Scotland in the early 1970’s and rode the wave of an exciting youth culture eager for change and a more hopeful vision of the world. 2) I was taught and introduced to the spiritual power of the Faith through prayer, reading, meditation and deep meaningful conversations with souls who were deeply versed in the teachings and felt their transforming power. 3) I had the opportunity to travel, meet and befriend Baha’is in many different countires and communities. Those three sets of visceral experiences of love, passion and intense emotion have inspired and sustained me throughout my life and remain at the core of my Baha’i identity. Such experiences are of course personal and different for everyone but in matters of faith are often self validating. Like any Baha’i I have found my faith tested in different ways and wrestled with my conscience and the cognitive dissonance on issues such as gender and sexual orientation mentioned by others but thankfully those transformational experiences have helped provide a form of resilience in our struggle to remain hopeful and positive in dark times. As I get older I often find strength in dipping onto that well of remembrance during my prayers and give thanks for the opportunity to have been a bearer of the lamp of unity. I feel remorse for those who never had the opportunities to experience such joy and pain for those who have to carry greater burdens than myself. I am not American, so do see our community through a slightly different lens than you Justice. We Europeans have similar concerns about the lack of growth or sometimes decline in numbers, but as I look back on my 50 years I also see that globally the Faith has grown and developed remarkably and I draw some strength in that. Numbers are always difficult but my understanding is that in 1971 when I declared, the worldwide Bahai population was estimated to be 1.25-1.50 million. From what I have read from a number of sources it is now estimated to be arounf 8.00-8.50 million.
Maybe the bigger issue here is moving away from our own sacred scriptures. Most of us now older Baha’is grew up at a time when we did deep dives into the history of the Faith and read the core books by the Bab, Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi. We were deeply inspired by them and they had transformational impacts on both individuals and communities … and a real sense of a true, united Baha’i family. In my view, these scriptures are no longer the focus, but have, seemingly, been replaced with more secular, ‘flavor of the day’ ideologies and an anything goes relativism. Presumably, the aim was to attract more people, but, to me, that approach has backfired in very big ways … as others on this thread have pointed out. I see no functioning or vibrant Baha’i community now in the way I did growing up and any creativity is crushed or administered into oblivion. It’s heartbreaking for many of us. Meanwhile, some 60,000 Americans joined the Catholic Church at Easter alone. Ultimately, the Baha’i Faith is a religion with the laws, foundational teachings, and moral values that implies. The writings themselves offer nuance, the ultimate balance, and profound insights for those who care to read them in any depth. For example, there are many passages that laud the advances of civilization/science and just as many that critique the spiritual hollowness, materialism, and moral corruption of modernity. Not everything ‘progressive’ is good and not everything that is ‘traditional’ is bad, or vice versa. The following quote may also be relevant to this discussion:
“The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples, that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of a divided humanity. To none is given the right to question their words or disparage their conduct, for they are the only ones who can claim to have understood the patient and to have correctly diagnosed its ailments. No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained….These are not days of prosperity and triumph. The whole of mankind is in the grip of manifold ills. Strive, therefore, to save its life through the wholesome medicine which the almighty hand of the unerring Physician hath prepared.”
Totally agree, Zarrin. Those days of intense studying and deepening of scripture are missed by me. I remember a deepening by Margaret Clayton: a whole weekend on the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, where we spent four hours in the first paragraph. And everyone there was transported spiritually. What a blessing!
Justice, I agree with at least 95% of what you said and with the way you said it (though a little less in-your-face than I might’ve been), and am certainly open to discussion on that AND on the 5% where the spark of truth could definitely be struck by the clash of differeing opinions.
Things have certainly changed since this old geezer became Baha’i back in ’69, and I’m very unsure I’d become one today if now were my first encounter with the community. Still, I wonder if a lot of us lost heart when we were no longer “in the forefront” because our social circles caught up with us on so many issues/principles that we no longer stand out as ahead of the curve. But it’s part of the process; and I can’t use that as any excuse for not doing the best I can, with what I have at the time, to model the better future we’re striving for. Which you certainly did in this article.
Are things perfect? Of course not. Are they as advanced as we each wish they were. No. For example, sometimes I almost despair that we’ll ever successfully meet the most vital and challenging issue … not just the most challenging, but first the most vital, a life-and-death matter for both this country and the American Baha’i community itself. OTOH, I’ve seen instances of both our National Spiritual Assembly and the Universal House of Justice being self-correcting over time; and, much as it ired me that it took so long, it didn’t do me any good to either silently stuff it down or wantonly fume about it not happening on my schedule. And as anyone who’s read my book knows, I don’t even insist that the Figures of the Faith be utterly infallable; I’m satisfied that they offer the BEST guidance currently available from, in, and for the world I live in, and that’s sufficient to me.
And we do indeed each still have not only the right but the responsibility to keep investigating the truth, and being open and honest about it. My understanding of certain truths has certainly evolved. But I’ve found that, way more often than not, such evolution doesn’t occur until AFTER I’ve accepted my understanding of what the Writings say. Then my heart is more open to learning more. I see you going and growing in the same way, because you CARE enough to take risks (as you know I did, too).
As an example, I was never content with the descriptions of of two important things the Writings/history, and we, talk about: the first attempt at the Bab’s execution, and the descriptions of the Abha Kingdom. But I accepted that they were meaningful to others in ways that didn’t resonate with me, and that their relevance to the vast majority of Baha’is was the most important thing. After which, I was given the bounty of “aha moments” that led to my seeing them in a new way equally meaningful to me.
It was an immigrant Persian friend, Badroddin, who led me to a new understanding of the composition of the Universal House of Justice. Was his the only understanding? No. Was it the sole “right” one? No. But I tend to think that God has innumerable reasons for doing what She does; and I’m satisfied when I can find even one that resonates with me. So Badroddin’s take on this question was (and I’m paraphrasing): “Are you kidding? Most women have always had to make and execute vital decisions for their families and communities without being granted any PERSONAL authority or power whatsoever. They’re very skilled at that. It’s about time men had to practice doing that, too.” In other words, he was saying it was a matter of the equality of women and men from the standpoint that men need to become equal with women in this ability/attribute. So if it changes in future, it’ll be because men learned the lesson.
And it was in a consultative phone convo with Mead and his wife Marielle, that I suddenly envisioned a description of the Kingdom that didn’t sound hellish to me. It was also interaction with Mead over many years that gave me a framework for understanding what happened with the Bab and Anis. But those are what work for me; I don’t need to convince anyone else that their interpretation is wrong, not even if the two seem to conflict. If theirs works for them, if it uplifts their soul, then it’s right, too.
On the topic of homosexuality, I think this is a test of ours in this country. I’ve seen or heard of LBGTQ+ Baha’is essentially run out of their communities. But some interpretations of things Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice said seem to be telling us Americans that we are way too hung up on this issue here, when EVERYONE has some kind of challenge to being obedient.
Which brings me back to TWIGS OF A FAMILY TREE. You may remember that Baha’i Admin at the Nat’l Ctr met with one of my coauthors, Mead, and me and the Review Ofc (whose help was very much appreciated) and told us that our book was groundbreaking: the first book — of all such manuscripts submitted to it — being considered for approval that addressed (among our many topics) homosexuality in a way other than simply quoting the Writings and authoritative guidance. And in the end, its publication happened after the Universal House of Justice consulted with the U.S. National Spiritual Assembly about it. (Mead and I have no clue what that consutation entailed. We weren’t told, we didn’t ask, none of our business; we just know the response was amazingly quick and the book was accepted.) The book is by no means the end of a public discussion in the Baha’i community and with the wider community on the topic, but it stands as a start.
In the Institute process, we have 4-month cycles of action and reflection. As a world-embracing, Progressive Revelation-believing community with a 1,000-year mission, we shouldn’t be surprised that we may have 40-year cycles. As long as we keep openly engaging in the consultative process, as frustrating as it can sometimes be, we will grow in breadth and depth. But we have to be willing to get out of our comfort zones.
Which you did. So thank you, Justice, for bravely getting THIS reflection cycle going here. You have a better forum for public involvement than I do, and you stood up and used it. GOD knows you did so for LOVE of the faith, right? Thank you also, publicly, for the awesome inspiration and guidance you gave Mead and me in our work. (And if you get “unenrolled” from the community over this article, then I’ll ask if I’ve been wrong all along. I don’t see any such thing happening, though; but if it does, no one can stop us from still living our life by Baha’u’llah’s guidance, can they? Together, we can keep the Faith, bro.)
Thank you Justice for your brave words. Those of us who grew up Bahai know the courage it took for you to post them. I left the religion a few years ago for many of the reasons you mentioned. The final straw for me was learning that Abdul-Baha, the Guardian, and the UHJ suppressed a postscript Bahaullah added to his Kitab-i Ahd. The UHJ admitted to it in a letter to two Bahai scholars that you can find on the Bahai library website (below). I was flabbergasted when i read it. This is THE central document of Bahaullah’s covenant and Bahais are not allowed to see it?? I’m out.
“The holograph of the Kitāb-i-‘Ahd contains a passage in the nature of a postscript praising Mīrzā Ākā Jān, directing the friends to show respect to him and expressing the hope that he join ‘Abdu’l-Bahā in upholding the standard of loyalty. The postscript was not included as part of the Will by ‘Abdu’l-Bahā when He circulated it during His lifetime, and this approach was continued by Shoghi Effendi. The House of Justice, likewise, has decided not to circulate it.”
https://bahai-library.com/pdf/b/buck_ioannesyan_russian_will.pdf
(it’s on page 40 of an article by Christopher Buck and Youli A. Ioannesyan, on “The 1893 Russian Publication of Bahá’u’lláh’s Last Will and Testament” in Bahá’í Studies Review, vol. 19 (2013), pp. 3–44.)
This is a very interesting reflection, Justice. It certainly assuages the burden of guilt I’ve felt for not bringing in one soul a year!
Is there something specific you want us to do with this info? Are you suggesting that when we mention the membership of the House or prohibiting gay marriage, we say “But you know that could change…”?
Perhaps, “I believe that this will change in the future.”
The other thing I’d like to see is a renewal of all of the things we used to do that we stopped doing – Fireside, travel teaching, hanging out together with no agenda, bring back the Black Men’s Gathering, perhaps without the word “Baha’i” in it, have Race Amity conferences, have schools where the agenda wasn’t set by someone else.
Whatever it takes to recapture the spirit that we had when the Community was vibrant and growing.
I resigned from the Faith 10 years ago after 43 years as a Baha’i. I did so because the House sent me two utterly inadequate responses to my extensive concerns about the Ruhi Institute Process. This forced me to confront the whole notion of what was actually meant by the infallibility that was conferred upon them, and I finally concluded that any such notion was completely invalid. This is because the human condition is such that we are all infinitely capable of being both saintly and sinful. As Abdu’l Baha remarked, Every child is potentially the light of the world—and at the same time its darkness; wherefore must the question of education be accounted as of primary importance. This means each of us must learn to confront – and come to terms with – those powerful forces within us.As I see it, we are all human, and because every institution – however nobly conceived – necessarily involves human beings interacting with one another, it is imperative that we all acknowledge that we can make mistakes. That includes the House of Justice and their capacity to make collective decisions however divinely inspired they may be.In my opinion, the House has been so seriously hampered by their conferred infallibility that they have been unable to publicly share their genuine concerns with the community about what worked – and did not work – during the Institute Process.Instead, as far as I am aware, they have maintained a relentlessly positive, upbeat – and heroic – posture that admits of no errors and describes it only in terms of unqualified success.This is comprehensively unhelpful. Those of us who operated locally on the ground know that the results were much more prosaic. This led me to conclude that the House – operating within the grandeur of the Baha’i World Centre – lives largely within its own bubble. This has been exacerbated by the fact that, since the International Teaching Centre was formed back in the 1980’s, the only men who have been elected to the House have been members of that institution, who were, of course, originally appointed by the House itself. Surely, whenever the House makes such appointments, they are aware that they are also appointing potential new members of their own institution. The way the voting system operates, that is what happens… Members of the ITC are appointed to different regions of the world, and this puts them in regular contact with the NSA’s in those regions who, in turn, elect the new members of the House. So ITC members have much more exposure to the electors than any other Baha’is, and this seems to be enough to get them elected. This is incestuous and, in my view, untenable. But Shoghi Effendi, whose directives are considered infallible and unchangeable, has insisted that we must accept the Faith in its entirety or cease being a Baha’i.So with infinite sadness, that’s what I did.
I’m sorry you felt that you had to leave the Faith just because you disagreed with the Institutions. My hope is that I can help shift the Faith to something closer to what Baha’u’llah intended by staying within it as long as they let me. If everyone who is frustrated with the way things are leaves, then nothing will ever change. There are more ex-Baha’is than active Baha’is. Imagine if they had all stayed and voted their conscience.
I commend your resolve, Justice, to stay in the Faith despite its many shortcomings, and I admire your struggles to make some kind of sense of its concepts of infallibility and inerrancy. But if you persistently think it through, I think you will find, like me, that such claims are simply untenable. The leadership of some other religious organisations, like the Mormons, Catholics and Jehovah’s witnesses also make such claims, and in my view, they use them mainly to impose conformity on their followers. Unfortunately, what happens, so often, when religions become organised, is that the material needs of the organisation tend to take precedence over the spiritual needs of the followers, and this, as we know, can lead to all kinds of abuses.
Conformity and allegiance come to matter much more than depth, insight and soul.
That is why I found the Ruhi Institute Process [note how the word “Institute” has been inserted here] to be basically objectionable. We were told that “it was not a deepening” because the focus was always on activating participants to “get out there and teach”. There was almost no emphasis on strengthening our understanding of the Faith, of developing a greater insight into ourselves, of supporting our emotional, intellectual, psychological needs, of building a constructive meaning into our lives.
These are what make religion relevant and purposeful.
The Writings provide ample material for all of this, and there was a wonderful opportunity, here, for Baha’is and their friends to explore all of these matters and grow together. But no such courses were ever devised because Ruhi’s underlying motive was always about expanding the Faith and “getting the numbers in”. In my 43 years in the Baha’i Community, that was always the emphasis, and in my opinion, that is, ironically, why growth has been so stagnant.
It is the needs of the organisation, of the administrative order, that came to matter more than people.
There actually was a wonderful deepening program that was about developing virtues, called The Comprehensive Deepening Program. It was developed by Dan Jordan and published in 1973 by the Publishing Trust. It was abandoned when Dr. Jordan died. I was selling the remaining copies of the 2001 reprint for $1 each in an attempt to get more people to study it. I’m down to my last case, so I raised the price back to $5 each in packs of 6.
https://bahairesources.com/p/comprehensive-deepening-program/
Then why was it not utilised and incorporated into Ruhi?
They are completely different formats, and the CDP had already faded after Dr Jordan died and couldn’t champion it. Sadly, competing personalities are at play.
Thank you for your thoughtful message. You clearly express questions and concerns that I have often heard spoken quietly but not widely. I am especially hopeful because you have encouraged open discussion without anxiety regarding being judged as disloyal, disobedient, or encouraging disunity. In addition, I have watched the energy in communities dissipate and enthusiasm dwindle while we plug our way through the Ruhi workbooks with compliance. And I know I am not the only one missing the vitality and inspiration of gatherings such as Greenlake Conference. None of us should fear reprisal for asking questions and presenting issues. Seekers ask all kinds of challenging questions, but once we are Baha’is, are we just to get quiet and fall in line?