|
The
inside of a small apartment with large windows looking out on a typically ugly
cityscape. Diplous is sitting in a chair by the door: it is his
apartment and he is wearing comfortable clothes, his feet bare. Monos
is seated on the other side of the little room: he is well dressed in the manner
of an important person making an official visit. He is visibly frustrated, and from time to
time during the conversation he waves his hand –- like someone swatting away
unfounded arguments.
Monos: But why do you want to be a Baha’i?
Diplous: That’s exactly what they asked me, almost word for word.
Monos: Who are ‘they’?
Diplous: The Local Spiritual Assembly. Don’t you remember me telling you I’d visited
them? Actually it wasn’t the whole Assembly,
I only met with two members. But in any
case, that was what they said.
Monos: They asked you why you wanted your Baha’i card?
Diplous: Yes, it was a few months ago now. I was raised a Baha’i and I always considered
myself one, but I grew up in the country, as remote and rural as it gets. When I arrived in the big city I discovered
that I needed a card to attend feasts. I
applied for a card, but the Local Spiritual Assembly rejected me. Since they wouldn’t tell me why they did this
in print, they set up a meeting to talk to me in person.
Monos: And did you find the answers you were looking for? Did they explain why your application was
rejected?
Diplous: Not quite. I told
them that I would listen to whatever they had to tell me. I swore that there was no recommendation that
I wasn’t prepared to consider. “What
must I do,” I said to them, “what must I do to receive my Baha’i card?”
Monos: And?
Diplous: And they didn’t tell me anything. They didn’t list one concrete action I could
take. Instead, there was one person, one
member of the Assembly, who kept saying the same thing. Whenever I would ask “what can I do?” I got
the same response. Instead of answering
my question, she put one to me: “why do you even want to be a Baha’i?” That was basically our whole meeting. No matter what I said, or what I asked, it
was always the same. “Why do you want to
be a Baha’i?”
Monos: I think that was a fair question. What answer did you give?
Diplous: That was always the same too: “because I love the truth.”
Monos: That’s an interesting answer. And what does truth mean to you?
Diplous: I think you’d agree that it’s hard to define. When Pilate asked Jesus what truth was, they
say that Jesus didn’t give him any answer.
And if Jesus couldn’t say how could I?
So the honest answer is that I’m not certain myself what truth is.
Monos: That’s fair enough – you don’t have to be a philosopher to immerse
yourself in Baha’u’llah’s revelation. We
can talk more about what truth means later.
But is it really true you can’t see why the Assembly might not want to
admit you? It seems obvious enough to
me.
Diplous: It does?
Monos: I don’t see how you could think you were a Baha’i after what
you’ve written about the Baha’i administration.
It’s obvious that you’re unhappy with a number of Baha’i beliefs, and
that you’re not afraid to air public criticisms of the divinely ordained
institutions, even the Universal House of Justice. You’ve written stories and articles
expressing critical and insulting ideas, and you’ve done everything you can to
distribute them over the internet as widely as possible. You advertise your differences with the
Baha’i administration to anyone who will listen. And how could you think it’s appropriate to
behave this way?
Diplous: Who’s to say it’s not?
How does being outspoken in my opinions bar me from being a Baha’i? Does it say on your Baha’i card that you can
only be a Baha’i if you’re quiet and stay out of controversy? Is refraining from saying what you really
think one of the twelve principles of the Faith?
Monos: I think it’s understood when we sign our card that we're
supposed to follow the guidance of the institutions. We're supposed to subscribe to the
fundamental verities. What makes you
think that you meet the criteria for membership set out by the Guardian?
Diplous: What don’t I believe?
I believe that Baha’u’llah is the Manifestation of God for the present
age. I believe that Abdu’l-Baha, the
Center of the Covenant, succeeded Him in His ministry. I believe that after the Master’s death, the
leadership of the Baha’i Cause fell to Shoghi Effendi. And I believe that in the present-day Baha’i
world the Universal House of Justice is the sole legitimate authority – I have
never questioned that. I may have questioned
several decisions, but I’ve never denied the House’s legitimacy: a distinction
I hope you can appreciate.
Monos: You can’t be serious!
How can you say you accept the authority of the House after what you’ve
written? The satires you’ve published are
vicious, corrosive. Comparing the most
sacred of institutions to a barnyard animal!
Twisting and mocking the pronouncement of the only infallible council on
earth! Or do you really believe that you
can love Baha’u’llah while you attack the institutions He created to guide the
Baha’i world? You can’t possibly believe
that. That’s the most ridiculous thing
I’ve heard – it’s past imagining it’s so unfounded!
Diplous: But you’ve heard it before?
Monos: I’ve heard it all, more than once, but I’ll never understand
how anyone can believe it. I’ll never
understand how people can say they love Baha’u’llah out of one side of their
mouth and then, out of the other side, they criticize the very institution that
upholds His Faith and guarantees His triumph.
How can anyone say they love Abdu’l-Baha, the Center of the Covenant, and
not love the Universal House of Justice,
which the Master has promised is “the source of all good and freed from error?”
Diplous: I know many people who love Abdu’l-Baha with all their
heart, who pray for Him as He prays for them, but that doesn’t mean they think
every decision of the House is above criticism or discussion.
Monos: But it does! Don’t
you see? You can’t separate Baha’u’llah
from the Universal House of Justice, it’s impossible! If you love Baha’u’llah you have to love the House, if you obey
Baha’u’llah you have to obey the
House – there’s no other way. It’s what
the Covenant means.
Diplous: Is it? How do you know that’s what the Covenant means? Is it really as simple as you say it is?
Monos: Never mind what I think, it’s what the Faith teaches that
matters. And it really is that
simple. Abdu’l-Baha, the Center of the
Covenant, affirms that the Universal House of Justice is “the source of all
good and freed from error.” Nothing
could be simpler. In another place He
says that "should any deviate by so much as a needle's point from the
decrees of the Universal House of Justice, or falter in his compliance
therewith, then is he of the outcast and rejected.” Is there anything unclear in that? Is that so hard to understand?
Diplous: But are you sure that we can take what the Master says so
literally? If we start following
everything the Central Figures said uncritically, down to the very letter,
where will it end?
Monos: In loyalty to the Covenant.
You have to decide what you believe: either Baha’u’llah is the
Manifestation or He isn’t. You can’t say
He’s the Manifestation on Tuesday but not on Wednesday, you can’t say He’s the
Manifestation in one part of your life and not in the other. Either He’s right or He’s not right: there’s
no other choice.
Diplous: Really?
Monos: Of course! Everything
else follows from this. Why should we
obey every word Abdu’l-Baha has written?
Because this is exactly what His Father instructed us to do: no more and
no less. And Abdu’l-Baha has told us in
turn to obey the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice. How can you say we shouldn’t heed these
manifestly clear instructions?
Diplous: Let me give you an example. It’s true that Abdu’l-Baha says the House
will be “the source of all good and freed from error.” And it’s also true that he has told us to
obey Shoghi Effendi. But what does
Shoghi Effendi tell us in turn about the Administrative Order? He says that without a Guardian, the House
won’t be able to function at all. Surely
you know this passage:
Divorced from the institution of the
Guardianship the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh would be mutilated and permanently
deprived of that hereditary principle which, as 'Abdu'l-Bahá has written, has
been invariably upheld by the Law of God… Without such an institution the
integrity of the Faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire
fabric would be gravely endangered. Its
prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an
uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking,
and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of
its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn.
Monos: I know all of that.
And are you trying to say that the World Order can’t function because
Shoghi Effendi had no child? This is
spiritually dangerous ground you’re walking on!
It’s the kind of thinking that leads to Covenant-breaking. Don’t you see how ridiculous it is to suggest
we need a living Guardian? Haven’t you
read the guidance of the House of this matter?
Diplous: You don’t have to get so excited – I’m not saying what you
think I’m saying. I’m not saying there
must be a living Guardian, in fact that’s my point. It’s because I think the Faith can function very
well without any successor to Shoghi Effendi that I don’t trust literal
readings. Anyone who took the passage I’ve just quoted
and insisted that every word had to be true would come to the opposite
conclusion that you and I have come to.
They would conclude that since Shoghi Effendi said that the World Order
would be “mutilated” without the hereditary principle, the current system must
be defective.
Monos: Defective?! There’s
nothing wrong with the current system… nothing!
It’s perfect! It’s everything
Baha’u’llah planned, no more and no less – how can you even suggest it’s not?
Diplous: I wasn’t saying anything of the sort! I agree with you completely. That’s what I keep trying to tell you. You’re right that we don’t need a living
Guardian: I’m not objecting to how things are now. I’m only observing that you’ve reached this
conclusion, which I think is sensible, because you don’t accept everything the Central Figures said – at least not in
a literal sense. If you did, you’d stick
on Shoghi Effendi’s precise words – mutilated,
imperiled, gravely endangered. You’d be
the one arguing there had to be a living Guardian. You don’t because you treat the writings of
the Faith the same way I do: flexibly and with discretion. You know that there are times when things
aren’t clear and simple, where the surface meaning can mislead, times when life is more complicated than words on a
page.
Monos: I don’t think I’m saying that at all. I don’t think the words can ever be
wrong. I know that we don’t need a
living Guardian because this is how the House has explained it. Every single word of what Shoghi Effendi said
is true, every word of it, that’s what the House tells us. We still have the Guardian’s guidance, even
now. We have everything we need for the
World Order to be realized – dead or alive, we still have a Guardian.
Diplous: It’s obvious that we’re not getting anywhere. All I was trying to do was show you that
things aren’t as simple as you say. Let
me give you another example of what I mean.
What about something different -- what about a situation where it’s not a
question of whether or not I believe a certain teaching, but of how I believe it? Take the infallibility of the House…
Monos: This is a very simple teaching: it’s perfectly clear.
Diplous: I thought that’s what you’d say, but is it really? Because sometimes I think I’m denied
membership in the Baha’i Faith not because I deny this particular teaching, but
because I deny a certain interpretation
which this teaching has been given.
Monos: Personal interpretations have no authority in the
Faith. What individuals think doesn’t
matter. What matters is when you go
against the official teachings.
Diplous: But what is the
official teaching on infallibility? What
do those words really mean?
Monos: It’s obvious what they mean: “the source of all good and
freed from error.” That’s as clear as
it gets.
Diplous: If it’s so clear, then tell me what it means in real life
terms. Does it mean, for example, that
the House of Justice knows when Hezbollah’s rockets are going to hit Haifa? I have heard people, people in this very
community, say that if the House tells them not to cancel their pilgrimage,
they’re not in any danger.
Monos: Well, of course that’s silly, but it’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what individual Baha’is
think.
Diplous: But the two members of the Assembly I met with are
individuals. I talk to individual
Baha’is every day whose individual understandings color whether they think I
should belong. What I’m trying to say is
that there are many ways to understand those words that you say are so
simple. Douglas Martin, who was a member
of the House until recently, described infallibility in a way I don’t think everyone
would. At a recent deepening in this
city, he gave the example of a conference where Baha’is were asked to send a
delegation. The House decided not to
send anyone, although the conference was similar to others where Baha’is had
been present. In the end the conference
was a disaster – it was hijacked by protestors.
Mr. Martin said that this was evidence of the House’s infallibility. As individuals, the members of the House
didn’t know why they made the decision at the time, but as an infallible
institution they made the right choice to stay away. Now tell me: is this the understanding of
infallibility all Baha’is are supposed to have?
Monos: That’s not for me to say, but it isn’t relevant. Doug Martin is not the House of Justice, he’s
still only an individual. He may have
his interpretation, but interpretations aren’t what count: it’s the teachings
themselves.
Diplous: I know that. I’m
only trying to show how different individuals, including very distinguished
Baha’is, can understand those words you say are simple differently. “The source of all good and freed from error” -- fine, but what does it mean? Does it
mean that the House will never send Baha’is to a conference where the
protestors take over? I know plenty of
people who don’t understand it that way.
I have one good friend who believes the words of the Master mean we
should embrace the decisions of the House in a mystical sense. Even if they don’t seem good, we should treat
them as good, in the same way we embrace all of the things that happen in this
life as coming from God, no matter how terrible. I heard another argument on the internet, I
think I understand it, that the infallibility of the House shouldn’t be falsifiable.
Monos: Falsifiable?
Diplous: It’s a technical term, and I’m only half sure I know what
the person meant by it myself. What I think it means is that our theory of
infallibility shouldn’t be such that it can be proven false by events. If we point to things happening a certain way
as proof the House is infallible, people’s faith may be shaken if they don’t
always happen that way. That means someone
who understands infallibility as Mr. Martin does may be setting us up for
disappointment. What if the House sends
delegates to a conference and their plane crashes? What if a rocket – God forbid – hits Haifa while the city is
full of Baha’i pilgrims? If people feel
the infallibility of the House is demonstrated by things going right in an
obvious way, they may question it when things seem, outwardly at least, to go
wrong.
Monos: And what’s your point?
If you know that individual beliefs hold no weight, why is it that you
keep insisting on discussing them?
Diplous: To show you that those words, “the source of all good and
freed from error,” are not as simple and obvious as you keep saying they
are. All the people I have mentioned,
Douglas Martin, my friend, the people on the internet, the people in my
community who say the House knows when Haifa will be struck by a rocket, all of
them are Baha’is in good standing, and yet each of them understands the words
of Abdu’l-Baha differently. Each of them
responds differently to the same scriptural passage.
Monos: So? Did I ever say opinions
are forbidden?
Diplous: But what if that’s all I have, an opinion? People have told me that I deny that the
House is infallible, but what if this isn’t true? What if I only deny certain ways of
understanding the infallibility of the House?
You ask me if I believe Abdu’l-Baha when he says that the House is “the
source of all good and freed from error…”
Monos: And do you believe
it?
Diplous: But that’s what I’m trying to say. It’s not a question of whether I believe it’s
true or untrue, it’s more complicated.
It depends on what those words mean. Do I believe that the House is “the source of
all good and freed from error” if it means that no one will ever be sent to a
bad conference, or the House can predict where the Hezbollah rockets are going
to land? If someone asks me that, I’ll say
‘no’ without hesitating. But do I believe
that the House is “the source of all good and freed from error” if it means
that the House is the supreme institution of the Baha’i Faith, that the rulings
of the House constitute legislation binding upon the Baha’i community? That the elucidations of the House decide any
questions we may have about the standard teachings? The answer to this is ‘yes, absolutely’. This is why…
Monos: Wait a minute! If you
accept that the House is “the source of all good and freed from error,” why are
you so critical? Don’t you understand
that for Baha’is even to debate whether the rulings of the House are good, let
alone mock them – it’s out of the question!
Diplous: But is accepting the legitimacy of a decision the same
thing as refusing to discuss or criticize it?
That seems to be how you interpret those words, but I understand them
differently. And is that enough for you
to conclude that I reject them? But this
is what I meant. This is why it feels to
me sometimes that I haven’t been refused membership because I deny anything the
Central Figures have taught, but because I don’t understand everything as
others do. I don’t deny the teachings, I
just don’t accept certain interpretations of the teachings.
Monos: Why do you always keep talking about interpretation? This isn’t a question of interpretation. We have the words of Abdu’l-Baha and there is
nothing to interpret. “The source of all
good and freed from error.” If you can’t
accept that, then you have no business calling yourself a Baha’i.
Diplous: Let me give you just one more example, then. Does believing that the House is “the source
of all good and freed from error” mean believing the decisions the House makes
don’t depend on the information it receives?
Monos: Well I think it’s clear.
Whatever information the House has or doesn’t have, the House is still
“the source of all good and freed from error.”
Diplous: OK. But does that
mean the House will make the best decision out of all possible decisions, or
only the best decision based on the
information that it has? Do you see
the distinction I’m making?
Monos: Not really.
Diplous: When any of us makes a decision, the most important part
of the process, some would say it’s the whole process, is the information we
receive. Bad information leads to a bad
decision. But is this how it works for
the House? Will the House make the right
choice about a given question with inaccurate information? With no information?
Monos: To make a bad choice would be an error, and we know that the
House is “the source of all good and freed from error.”
Diplous: Consider this statement from the House, from August 22,
1977. “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.” It sounds as if the House is admitting the
possibility I’ve talked about: that infallibility does not guarantee a decision will be the best one if the information is
inadequate. If the House doesn’t get
good information, this passage suggests, it won’t be able to make a good
decision. And what’s wrong with that?
Monos: Everything! The House
is “the source of all good and freed from error.” The House will never make a bad decision,
period.
Diplous: Fine, this is what I mean about different
interpretations. That is how you
interpret this. But it’s not how I
understand what the House is saying. Because
if what you said was true, why does the House go to such lengths to get the
best information possible? Why does the
Faith pay all those researchers to gather facts if it isn’t necessary, if the
House will make the best possible decision regardless? Everything we know about the process implies
that the decisions of the Universal House of Justice are only as good as the
information on which those decisions are based.
Why say that the House “may well change its decision” if the original
decision must be perfect? This can only
be because while the House may be infallible, it is not necessarily infallible
in the sense some Baha’is imagine it.
The supreme institution must be infallible in a way that does not
preclude the possibility that it can make a mistake. Or at least that’s how I see it.
Monos: I’ve heard all of this before, and it doesn’t impress
me. It’s a flimsy argument. You’re just giving the standard line from the
Baha’i Rants blog.
Diplous: You know Baha’i
Rants? It seems that my friend
Baquia has a bigger readership than I thought!
Monos: I know Baha’i Rants,
and the argument that your friend makes there is ridiculous –- no substance at
all! How can you say that because the
House has researchers and needs information that it can be mistaken? We know that the House can’t make mistakes:
every decision is the best possible decision because the House is “the source
of all good and freed from error.” What
don’t you understand about those words?
Diplous: You mean that you don’t at least see how someone could
make this argument in good faith?
Monos: Not if they actually think about it. The argument that the House will make a bad
decision on bad information is full of holes: it doesn’t stand up to serious
investigation. If people believe that
it’s only because they haven’t thought it through clearly.
Diplous: But this is my problem.
If you think this idea is so ridiculous, how can you believe the people
who defend it are honest? Are you saying
that someone who argues that the decisions of the House depend on information
isn’t sincere?
Monos: Sincerity has nothing
to do with it! The people who crash planes
into buildings are sincere, but I still can’t understand how anyone could do that. Sure the people who deny that the House is infallible
are sincere, everyone’s sincere: but being sincere isn’t the same as being
right. They’re wrong, and I can’t believe
that they don’t see it. If they accept
Abdu’l-Baha, they have to accept that the House is “the source of all good and
freed from error.”
Diplous: Enough about “the source of all good and freed from
error!” All you do is keep repeating
those words! Do you know who you remind
me of? You sound exactly like Martin
Luther at the Marburg Colloquy.
Monos: I don’t know what you mean…
Why are you mentioning that now? Martin
Luther was standing up to a corrupt church: this situation is entirely different. The House isn’t corrupt, it’s “the source of
all good and freed from error.”
Diplous: Perhaps you don’t understand. I read so much history that I assume everyone
else knows what I mean. But perhaps I
should explain. The Marburg Colloquy has
nothing to do with Martin Luther confronting the Catholic Church, it was where
he met another Protestant leader, Huldrich Zwingli. Zwingli and Luther met in order to settle one
of the major differences between the Protestant factions: the nature of the
Eucharist.
Monos: And what does this have to do with what we’ve been saying
here?
Diplous: Bear with me for a minute and you’ll find out. The Reformation was a time when all sorts of
doctrines were being argued out and redefined -- one of the most important of these
debates involved the Lord’s Supper. Were
the body and blood of Christ really present in the bread and wine during the celebration
of the mass?
Monos: Well it’s obvious that they aren’t. That contradicts science and we know that the
teachings of true religion are in harmony with science. The Master has said that “what the mind of
man cannot grasp, religion must not accept.”
This belief that the bread and wine are flesh and blood is clearly
superstitious.
Diplous: I would agree with you, but that wasn’t what Luther
thought. He believed that Jesus was
really present right there in the communion wafers and the wine. And he was sure because he believed that he
had the clear and unequivocal words of scripture to back him up. Luther went to Marburg because Zwingli didn’t believe
this. Zwingli agreed with Luther about
most things, but he thought, as I would and it seems you do, that Jesus wasn’t
really present in the sacraments. He
said that the mass was simply a commemoration of the Last Supper, a symbolic
act of worship.
Monos: That sounds more like true religion.
Diplous: I agree, but Luther would have none of it. Remember how I said that he thought scripture
was on his side? When Luther met Zwingli
at Marburg the
two sat across from another at a wooden table -- a little like the one we’re
sitting at now. Without saying a word,
Luther took a piece of chalk and he wrote four Latin words on the table: hoc est corpus meum – “this is my body.” He wrote those four words from the Gospels
because he felt that they settled the whole question of whether the sacraments
really contained Jesus’ flesh and blood.
Jesus had said “this is my body”
at the Last Supper, which was the celebration of the first Christian mass. Therefore, Luther felt he could be sure the
bread and wine contained, in very truth, the body of Jesus.
Monos: I’ve told you before that certitude isn’t always the same thing
as correctness. Someone can be certain
and still be wrong.
Diplous: I think Luther was wrong as well, and Zwingli did
too. Zwingli tried to point out that the
words “this is my body” don’t need to be taken literally. Figurative language is a natural part of
human speech, after all. If someone buys
a car and fixes it up, they might say “this car is my baby,” but they aren’t
actually saying that the vehicle is a human infant. It’s not a literal statement of fact, it’s a
figure of speech. So why should Jesus be
saying that the sacraments are really His body?
Couldn’t He use language in all the ways we do? But the point that I’m trying to make is that
Luther wouldn’t hear this. He wouldn’t
have any of it because for him the matter was perfectly clear. There were the words: this is my body. They didn’t
need interpretation, they didn’t need explanation, they were as plain as
day. And that’s why you remind me of
Luther. You meet with me, and you sit
down at this table, and you set before me, not literally but figuratively, the
seemingly simple words that you believe answer everything and whose meaning is
beyond discussion. The source of all good and freed from error -- this is your
solution, the formula that solves every question. But does it?
Is it any clearer or freer from ambiguity than this is my body, which Luther advanced at Marburg?
Monos: Now you’re the one who doesn’t understand me. You don’t understand because you’re missing
an important distinction. There was no
Covenant in Martin Luther’s time. All he
had was his personal interpretation. But
Baha’is are protected from personal interpretations by the Covenant. Personal interpretations of scripture are
without authority, the words themselves are what matter. If you can’t accept “the source of all good
and freed from error,” then you need to take it up with Abdu’l-Baha because
he’s the one who said it, and not me.
Diplos: And this is what Luther said to Zwingli at Marburg, he said he
couldn’t control the words of Christ.
The problem with Luther’s approach, which I believe is the problem with
yours, is that he didn’t want to admit that he was pushing a particular
interpretation of scripture. Which is
why he was so violently dismissive of alternate interpretations, like the one
Zwingli offered. If he admitted that it
was even possible to read the Bible in more than one way, his whole system fell
apart. He wanted to insist, as you do,
that there is only one meaning of scripture: a clear and evident meaning that
is impossible to deny.
Monos: And are you saying you deny anything the Central Figures
have said?
Diplous: There you go again!
This is what makes your approach the same as Luther’s. You insist that the scriptures mean what they
mean, you refuse to acknowledge that there may be more than one way to
understand them. And then, when someone won’t
accept how you have read a passage,
you say that they’re denying the passage itself. You conflate disagreeing with how you
understand Abdu’l-Baha with disagreeing with Abdu’l-Baha himself. And when your opinion is challenged, you deny
that you have any opinion at all.
Monos: I never said that I didn’t have an opinion, I said that my
opinion doesn’t matter. This is
something about the Covenant you’ll have to understand if you want to become a
Baha’i. The Covenant exists to protect
the Faith from personal interpretations.
That’s why we have no room for theologians in the Baha’i Faith. If we allowed personal interpretations to
take over, everyone would be able to make the Faith over in their own
image. It would no longer be the divine
religion the world needs, and it would become merely another human sect, and we
have enough of those already.
Diplous: But what would be wrong with letting people understand the
writings in their own way? What if
everyone experienced and appreciated the scriptures for themselves? What if there were as many variations on the
Baha’i Faith as there were individuals?
That sounds like a perfect example of diversity.
Monos: And what would unify that diversity? We’ve tried different faiths for thousands of
years and all it’s ever brought is war and conflict. The Covenant provides us with a single
interpretation of the teachings, with a single authoritative doctrine that will
allow us to unite the world.
Diplous: But can’t you unite the world without having everyone
subscribe to the same set of teachings?
Monos: I don’t think you can.
If people don’t have a common belief system, what else can unite them?
Diplous: What about love?
Monos: Love?! What’s that
supposed to do? People have talked about
love since the beginning, but it’s never gone anywhere! And what is
love anyway? Love is obedience. Baha’u’llah says we should obey Him for love
of His beauty. People will never come
together because they love each other -- it’ll never happen – they’re going to
come together because they’re held captive to the Word of God.
Diplous: Captive to the Word of God? That sounds familiar.
Monos: It should. You don’t seem
to like Martin Luther, but I’ve always admired him. It’s not his fault if he lived before Baha’u’llah’s
Covenant. I admire him for his
conviction, for his firm belief. I
admire him for how he defied the corrupt authority of the Roman Catholic
Church. And I think that you could learn
from him.
Diplous: And what could I learn?
Monos: You could learn not to insist on your personal
understandings. When Luther defied the
church, he didn’t say that he was doing it because of personal opinion or
because he was following his conscience.
What he said was this: “my conscience is held captive to the Word of
God.”
Diplous: I thought that was what you were getting at.
Monos: And I trust that you can also see what it means. Luther didn’t have the protection of the
Covenant, but he spoke about scripture in the same way that Baha’is do. We don’t pick and choose which of the
writings we believe, we don’t decide how they will be interpreted. Our conscience is captive to the Word of
God. It’s not what we want but what God
wants, not what we believe but what He teaches us to believe. It’s Christ saying in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy
will be done.”
Diplous: But how do you know that you’re really captive to God’s
Word, and not to how you understand God’s Word?
How can you tell the difference?
Monos: The difference is the Covenant: the guidance offered by the
infallible institutions.
Diplous: But doesn’t even that depend on how you interpret the
doctrine of the Covenant in the first place?
And isn’t everyone else equally certain that they’re right? Aren’t the Christian fundamentalists who say
the world is six thousand years old or the Muslim fundamentalists who won’t let
girls learn to read just as sure of themselves?
If you asked one of them, I’m sure they’d say that they were
captive to the Word of God too. They’d
say what Martin Luther said five hundred years ago and what you say to me now:
they’d say that they weren’t interpreting anything, that they were obeying the
clear meaning of the Holy Word. And they
wouldn’t be afraid to say that you were denying it if you didn’t accept how
they read the Bible or the Koran. If
Luther were alive today, he wouldn’t agree with you either. He’d say you needed to submit to his Word of
God and put Baha’u’llah behind you.
Monos: They would all say that, definitely, but they’d still be
wrong. The Christian thinks that he has
an infallible source but he doesn’t, since Jesus didn’t write the New Testament
Himself. The Koran is the very Word of
the Manifestation Muhammad, but there’s no Covenant to protect it from personal
interpretations. So while some
Christians and Muslims may be sure, they don’t have assurance. Obeying a source of true guidance isn’t the
same as obeying a false source. You say
you recognize Baha’u’llah, so you should understand that.
Diplous: Am I hearing you correctly then? When people from other religions abide by the
very letter of their scriptures they’re wrong, but when Baha’is do it they’re
right?
Monos: Only Baha’is can abide by the letter of their scripture
because only Baha’is have the protection of the Covenant. Christians and Muslims may think they’re
right, but they lack a supreme, authoritative institution to ensure it. That’s why they’ve splintered into so many
sects. Which brings us back to the real
reason we’ve met: why is it that you want to be part of the Baha’i
community? What does community mean for
you?
Diplous: Community? For me the
foundation of any community is love…
Monos: Only love?
Diplous: A community is a group of people who love each other, who
pray together, fast together, and who support each other in birth, marriage,
death and the other passages of their lives.
Monos: That’s community for you?
Community for Baha’is means much more than that. The Baha’i community comes together because
people share Baha’i beliefs. The Baha’i
community is a community of men and women whose conscience is held captive to
the Word of God. We believe in Baha’u’llah
as the Manifestation of God for this day and we believe in the ultimate
authority of the supreme, infallible institution that He created. That’s the foundation of our community, and
if you want to be part of our community, it is something you’ll learn to
accept.
Diplous: But – and this is really what I’ve been trying to say all
along – but don’t I accept both of those things? Did I ever say I didn’t believe in Baha’u’llah or that I didn’t believe in the Universal House of Justice? It seems that what we’re arguing about here
isn’t Baha’u’llah or the House, it’s that little word ‘believe’. I say that I believe in the station of
Baha’u’llah, and that I believe in the position and authority of the House and
you say that I don’t because we disagree about what it means to believe
something. For you, to believe in the
writings and the Central Figures means one thing, but for me it’s something
different.
Monos: How can it be different?
Belief is simple: either you believe something’s true or not. It
sounds to me like you don’t want to face this.
You don’t want to face that you have a choice: accept Baha’u’llah as the
Manifestation or turn aside and reject Him.
Diplous: I think you’re the one who’s avoiding something difficult. You don’t want to acknowledge that some
things can’t be reduced to binary terms, to black and white and ‘yes’ and
‘no’. The difference that we have about
the word ‘believe’ starts with a more basic difference. When we say we believe something, what we mean
is that we believe something is the truth.
You and I don’t disagree about Baha’u’llah or the House or the Covenant,
we disagree about truth. When I said I
wanted to join the Baha’i community, I said it was because I love the
truth. But I don’t think that truth is
the same thing for me as it is for you.
Monos: But how could it be different? Truth is simple. Truth is one.
Baha’u’llah has given us the truth, and Abdu’l-Baha has forbidden us to
deviate from it “by so much as a needle’s point.”
Diplous: That’s the kind of difference I mean. You believe that truth is simple, I
don’t. You believe that truth is a thing, something that you either have or
you don’t. I believe that truth is a process, a journey that we start out on
and that we never finish in this life.
And I believe that it’s not the finding but the seeking that
matters. Truth isn’t about having the
answers either. It’s about being open,
about being willing to listen and consider, and never dismissing anything that
we hear out of hand. I say that I love
Baha’u’llah because I love the truth, but embracing Baha’u’llah isn’t the end
of my search for truth, it’s only the beginning.
Monos: You can continue looking for truth once you’ve become a
Baha’i, but your search also has to continue within the clear boundaries marked
out by the Covenant. You need to
discipline your thoughts according to the limits that have been marked out for
us. And I don’t think truth is
unattainable. As Baha’is we believe that
Baha’u’llah is the truth, and that when we’ve found Him we’ve found the
truth. We are held captive to the Word
of God and we welcome into our community only those who can accept the Word of
God. And if anyone insists on their
personal interpretation to the extent that it causes disunity, or if someone
openly denies the words of the Central Figures, then they have no place in our
community. This is why we have the Covenant.
Diplous: Is that really the purpose of the Covenant? I’ve always thought that we’ll never
understand the sacred writings well enough to be sure that someone else hasn’t
understood them better, not in this life at least. I’ve always thought that we have to resign
ourselves to seeing things “darkly, as through a glass.” I never believed the Covenant was there to make
us so sure of our position we can’t welcome those who think differently, be it
only “by so much as a needle’s point.”
Monos: We can welcome people who don’t share our beliefs as
friends, but to welcome them into the Baha’i community is something else. And if you don’t think that we can know the
truth, what makes you want to be part of a religion in the first place?
Diplous: I was going to say love, but I’m not sure that’s an answer
you’d accept.
Monos: So where do we go from here?
Would you like to meet with the Assembly? Would you like to tell them what you’ve told
me?
Diplous: Thank you, but I don’t see what good it would do. What could they say to me that you haven’t
already said? Or I to them? Would we actually talk, or just talk past
each other? I could say whatever I want,
but I’d always run up against the Covenant.
And how can I discuss something with people who deny they have an
opinion, or at least say that their opinion doesn’t count? You can say what you want about being captive
to the Word of God, but the condition has its drawbacks. Being certain of the truth is wonderful, but
it is possible to be too certain? What if being captive to the Word of God
makes you so certain you lose sight of other perspectives? What if it makes you so certain you don’t
need to listen? And to separate the Word
from our response to the Word -- I’m still not sure if anyone can do that.
Monos: I’d be willing to talk with you again if you like, and if
you change your mind and want to meet with the Assembly, the offer still
stands. But if you decide to discuss
this with the institution, remember that you have to listen as well.
Diplous: I’ll do my best.
 Quote this article on your site | Views: 2461
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved |
