I first wrote about one of Peter Khan’s addresses more than four years ago. I was concerned at the time because he was part of the highest administrative body in the Baha’i Faith and because his words were being studied in my community. This time around, my attitude has changed. I don’t know what’s being studied in the Toronto Baha’i community these days, and I don’t care that Peter Khan remains a member of the Universal House of Justice. I’m writing now because I see something to learn in Peter Khan’s latest address. His speech is instructive because it illustrates the religious impulse at its worst. In the space of a few words, he makes his listeners an offer which is at once deeply immoral and profoundly false. He promises us something that we can never have in exchange for something that we should never give up. More explicitly than many religious leaders, Peter Khan appeals to the less admirable aspects of the human personality.  And all of us can profit from considering how he does this.

Apart from being explicit, Peter Khan is also brief: his message is expressed in three and a half sentences. His nominal subject is the necessity of moderation. He says that the Baha’i Faith must balance the needs of the moment with eternal principles. A successful religion, indeed a successful civilization, adapts to new events without losing what is best in the past. This is how Peter Khan presents the problem, and he reveals his solution near the very end of his address:

The solution is childishly simple; the solution is so simple, it’s hardly worth mentioning.  The solution is no more and no less than unreserved acceptance of whatever the central authority of the Cause, in this case the Universal House of Justice, decrees. If we would hold to that, if we would contemplate it deeply, if we would absorb the implications and meaning of unreserved acceptance and implementation of whatever the Central Authority in the Cause decrees, we are safe. Nothing can trouble us, we are in an impregnable stronghold…

At its best, religion speaks to what’s best in us, but this is more like religion at its worst. Here Peter Khan appeals to our less noble impulses, two related impulses to be specific. He appeals to our desire to evade moral responsibility and to escape the sense of uncertainty which accompanies this responsibility. The words ‘immoral’ and ‘false’ are often used carelessly, but if you examine Peter Khan’s words above, you’ll see that I’ve applied them with great care here. I’ve said that his address is both profoundly false and deeply immoral, and I’m willing to stand by each of these characterizations.

To start with the word immoral, this is the best description for the “unreserved acceptance” that Peter Khan recommends. Morality assumes moral accountability, and moral accountability demands that we are answerable as individuals for every choice we make. We can’t accept responsibility for some of our actions and evade it in the case of others. And we certainly can’t transfer our individual responsibility to the collective authority of our family, state, or religion. And yet this is precisely what Peter Khan invites us to do. To accept the authority of the Universal House of Justice is a free and morally accountable decision, but it’s also the last such decision we are asked to make. Once we’ve become Baha’is we only need to accept, without reservation, “whatever the Central Authority of the Cause decrees.” Peter Khan is inviting us to surrender our moral responsibility, and so he’s making an immoral request.

And what do we receive in return from Peter Khan’s immoral bargain? Stripped of their context, his three words “we are safe” might have several meanings. But the address as a whole makes it clear that Peter Khan is using “safe” to mean ‘free from uncertainty’, ‘secure in the knowledge that we’ve made the right choice’. And this is to be expected if we believe, with Peter Khan, that the Universal House of Justice is divinely guided and “freed from error.” If the House is really “freed from error,” submission must ensure the right decision in every case. And so the bargain is plain. On our side we surrender responsibility for our actions and, in exchange, “we are safe” from any doubt regarding those actions. We don’t have to worry whether we’ve made the right choice since the choice is no longer ours to make. We trade accountability for security.

And if such an exchange may be fairly called immoral, there is even more reason to call it false. In one sense at least, it’s impossible to conceive of anything more false than the certainty which Peter Khan offers in this speech. It’s true that previous spiritual leaders have declared themselves “freed from error” as well, but this promise is hardly more plausible through repetition. Every other claim of religion seems reasonable, even likely in comparison. The resurrection of Jesus, the metamorphoses of Krishna, the night-journey of Mohammed – none of this is impossible in the same sense as the claim that the decisions of a given religious authority are always correct. Compared to this, Utopia seems prosaic. Set beside the promise of infallible divine guidance, the potion of eternal youth becomes a reasonable proposition. And so even if we may call many things in Peter Khan’s address false, nothing is so false as his assurance that “we are safe,” if we accept “whatever the Central Authority of the Cause decrees.” This is a lie as little or nothing else in his entire speech. It is the one claim which not only may be untrue but which must be untrue. It is false, and profoundly so.

On one level, even the most foolish person must suspect that the divine guarantee which Peter Khan offers is impossible: but that only makes it more attractive. This is because human perversity balances desire to probability. We want something more when we discover that it’s out of reach. And so Peter Khan's address illustrates how a bad religious leader, like a bad politician, speaks to what’s worst in our nature. First, he invites us to surrender our moral accountability, and then he offers as an incentive something that, in our wiser moments, we realize must remain a fantasy. More surely than the faith healer or the fortune-teller, he appeals to our perverse longing for the impossible. He offers something more fantastic, and therefore more enticing, than any get-rich scheme or patent medicine. Only make the decision to obey, and the burden of every subsequent decision is lifted. Accept the infallibility of the House, and you can enter Peter Khan’s “impregnable stronghold,” safe behind walls fortified against doubt.

And this is why I decided to respond, for a second time, to one of Peter Khan’s addresses. Time is too short for me to write, or for you to read, about every charlatan selling the impossible and immoral dream of a life without uncertainty or accountability. But I still believe that this latest address is something special. For the critic of religion, it provides an example of the abuse of spiritual discourse. And for the idealist who still sees the potential of faith, it’s even more valuable. Peter Khan’s rancid blend of deception and seduction provides a mirror-image glimpse at good religion. It’s only necessary to turn his attitude upside down to present a picture of religion as it might be. If a bad religion invites us to evade our personal responsibility, a good religion must be one that encourages us to face it. And if bad religions promise what we realize is impossible, so good religions help us to accept the human condition without wishing to transcend or escape it. I’ve come to think that this is an important distinction. And whatever our limitations, we should be grateful that our creator has bestowed the ability to recognize it.

	1. Written by Mavaddat on 14-08-2009 12:06 - Registered
	Inconsistent Criticism: Peter Khan's pr In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 77, Bahá’u’lláh writes:Quote: Blessed is the man that hath acknowledged his belief in God and in His signs, and recognized that ‘He shall not be asked of His doings’. Such a recognition hath been made by God the ornament of every belief and its very foundation. Upon it must depend the acceptance of every goodly deed. Fasten your eyes upon it, that haply the whisperings of the rebellious may not cause you to slip.     In the Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 169, Bahá’u’lláh writes:Quote: He accomplisheth whatsoever He willeth, and doeth all that He desireth. “Whoso sayeth ‘why’ or ‘wherefore’ hath spoken blasphemy!” Were these people to shake off the slumber of negligence and realize that which their hands have wrought, they would surely perish, and would of their own accord cast themselves into fire — their end and real abode. Have they not heard that which He hath revealed: “He shall not be asked of His doings?” (Qur’án 21:23). In the light of these utterances, how can man be so bold as to question Him, and busy himself with idle sayings?     And in Rahíq-i-Makhtúm vol. I, pp. 302-4 (also, Bahá'í News 426, September 1966, p. 2, and "Wellspring of Guidance" pp. 84-6), 'Abdu'l-Bahá says: Quote: Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any decision according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The Supreme House of Justice will take decisions and establish laws through the inspiration and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is in the safekeeping and under the shelter and protection of the Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its decisions is a bounden and essential duty and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape for anyone.     In other words, the unquestioning obedience that Peter Khan demands, and which you seem to so abhor, is an integral part of the religion that you admire. It seems from these (and other) quotations that the Bahá'í Faith is a determinately dogmatic religion. (You'll notice the duty to "investigate the truth" is never applied to investigating whether some authoritative writ might be false, but only whether it is true; according to the Bahá'í writings, if you cannot understand why some aspect of the Bahá'í doctrine or practise is correct, you must accept it as true anyway.) In light of this, what is the weight of your criticism of Peter Khan, when you do not levy similar criticism of the entire religion as a whole? Although you are right that it is immoral to demand that one abdicate their conscience, insofar as the Bahá'í itself demands this abdication, it seems to me that the only conclusion to draw is that the religion itself is immoral.

	2. Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 14-08-2009 13:52 - Registered
	Not inconsistent, just monotheistic Hi Mavaddat,    Peter Khan isn't the House, and he's certainly not God. The passages you quote, taken in isolation, seem to say one thing but, when balanced with other passages, cannot mean what you ascribe to them.    Here's Baha'ullah, asking much the same question as the one you're asking:    "Say: O people! We shall put to you a question in all truthfulness, taking God for a witness between you and Us. He, verily, is the Defender of the righteous. Appear, then, before His Throne of glory and make reply with justice and fair-mindedness. Is it God Who is potent to achieve His purpose, or is it ye who enjoy such authority? Is it He Who is truly unconstrained, as ye imply when ye say that He doeth what He pleaseth and shall not be asked of His doings, or is it ye who wield such power, and who merely make such assertions out of blind imitation, as did your forebears at the appearance of every other Messenger of God?"  Suriy-i-Haykal para 58    (Thanks to Alison for the quotequote) http://bahaisonline.net/tcb

	3. Written by Mavaddat on 17-08-2009 08:33 - Registered
	"Balancing" apparent contradictions Bahá'u'lláh opposed "blind imitation" when it suited his purpose to disturb Muslims out of their complacency, and he advocated it when it suited his purpose to cajole his followers into complacency. From a motivational point of view, there is no inconsistency in that. He wanted to maximize the bias toward becoming and remaining a Bahá'í.    But Steve, you seem to think that showing passages such as the one you provide somehow offers a "balance." I've seen this approach with many other moderate Bahá'ís and moderate Christians who try to preserve the value of their religious scripture while denying the obviously heinous things it says. However, what this method wrongly assumes is that some sort of middle ground is the intention we may infer from comparing to apparently contradictory statements from on author.    This is false.    If I state that no one has a right to question me, but everyone should question their former beliefs, it does not follow that I intend for people to question my teachings as well. For notice, that given the symmetrical relationship of this contradiction, there is no reason to prefer the latter statement (to eschew blind imitation) above the former statement (prescribing unconditional obedience). Your attempted reconciliation is no more valid than the one that says that "what Bahá'u'lláh really meant was that Muslims also shouldn't question their religion." In fact, showing to opposing statements only implies that I contradict myself. No "inference of the medium" can be drawn from simply considering a text with another contradictory text. This is a straightforward fallacy of the golden mean well-known to philosophers.

	4. Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 17-08-2009 09:11 - Registered
	Getting past the apparent inconsistencie Hi Mavaddat,    There's no scriptural basis for Peter Khan to demand unquestioning obedience. And I would argue that 'Abdu'l-Baha's description of obedience to the House cannot mean that the House is to be treated as if it is God, because that would be idolatry, which is condemned throughout the Writings.    That's what I mean about not taking statements in isolation. I'm not saying a particular middle position between two extremes must be the correct one. I'm simply suggesting that the answer is probably found somewhere in the middle. I'm suggesting that unquestioning obedience is required only in relation to God, and that this is a fairly consistent line throughout the Baha'i writings. Your mileage may vary. http://bahaisonline.net/tcb

	5. Written by Mavaddat on 18-08-2009 07:01 - Registered
	Getting past the apparent inconsistencie Thanks, Steve.    I think it's clear to anyone who reads his passages referring to the equivalence of obedience to the House with obedience to God that what you wrote about the 'Abdu'l-Bahá's words not implying treating the House as if it spoke for God is simply false. Quote: Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God. May the wrath, the fierce indignation, the vengeance of God rest upon him! (Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 11) If you want to believe that this is idolatry, that's fine, I personally don't think it needs to be taken that way; however, you make this point as if the religious authors cared about consistency. You should realize that consistency does not matter even one bit in religion; Karen Armstrong is emphatic about this point in all her books on religion. The only thing that matters is the defense of their religion's core doctrine, or practice, and we see that the Bahá'í Faith is no different in this regard. There are very few passages or ideas in the Bahá'í Faith that are not contradicted elsewhere when expediency moves the authors to contradict themselves. However, from the existence of contradictions, no such reconciliation of their viewpoints can be drawn where none is given by the authors themselves.    The logic you are employing is a straightforward fallacy of middle ground (also called fallacy of the golden mean, or fallacy of moderation). From observing two opposing propositions between two extremes by one author, no warrant is given for concluding that Quote: the answer is probably found somewhere in the middle . If the answer is somewhere in between, as you say, then both the opposing statements are false. Statements at the extreme don't remain true if some third option is chosen.    But this should not worry you, since you are not choosing a third option. You are simply tossing out the passages that tell Bahá'ís not to think or question, and calling it a exegetical reconciliation. You selectively choose the passages that tell Muslims to question their religion while simply ignoring or dismissing the ones that tell Bahá'ís to not question as obvious meaning something else (notice neither Bahá'u'lláh nor 'Abdu'l-Bahá ever encourages Bahá'ís to consider the possibility their doctrines are false, which alone is a testimony to their dogmatism).    Let's be very clear about this: You are not reconciling the extremes presented by Bahá'u'lláh. You are simply choosing to ignore particular passages on the grounds that they obvious cannot mean what they obviously do mean.    Why assume that the Bahá'í Faith needs to agree with you? You may not be dogmatic, but maybe it is a dogmatic religion after all, Steve. Did you consider that? Perhaps you should let the Bahá'í Faith speak for itself instead of reshaping it into what you wish it were.

	6. Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 18-08-2009 15:25 - Registered
	I beg to differ Hi Mavaddat,    Thanks for all your assertions about religion, religious authors, Karen Armstrong, the fallacy of middle ground and Baha'u'llah's alleged dogmatism. Let me deal with just one of these assertions.    Here's what I wrote:    Quote: I'm not saying a particular middle position between two extremes must be the correct one. I'm simply suggesting that the answer is probably found somewhere in the middle.     You provided a link to a definition of the fallacy of middle ground -- presumably to educate me on what the fallacy is about. Here's what it says:    Quote: This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. ... This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one.     Yet you say that "no warrant is given for concluding that 'the answer is probably found somewhere in the middle'. I beg to differ. http://bahaisonline.net/tcb

	7. Written by Mavaddat on 18-08-2009 15:07 - Registered
	I beg to differ Without any actual arguments, I'm left having to read between the lines on your response, Steve. You seem to think that the fallacy is only committed when one believes that the position exactly in the middle of two extremes must be right. Or else, you are hinging your defense on the choice of "probably true" instead of "must be true." However, neither of these is an evasion of the fallacy. To commit the fallacy does not require the premise that the truth lies exactly in the middle, nor that it is necessarily (must be) true. It is simply committed when one flies from two extremes to the conclusion that some middle, or moderate position is true, probabilistically or not.    There simply is no justification for this, nor do you attempt to give one. Permitting this, I fail to see how you maintain your position.  Quote: I beg to differ.   I'll take that as a cue to get lost. Thanks, Steve.

	8. Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 19-08-2009 04:32 - Registered
	Dissonance This controversy reinforces my belief that there is more than one Baha'i religion. Unfortunately for the sake of diversity, that may not always be the case. The Baha'i Authoritative Order may once and for all succeed in silencing critics of their Commander-in-Chief god, rendering the Educator god, the Impartial Judge god, and the Jealous Lover god emasculated and silent. http://kaweah.com

	9. Written by Eva Helene Leuthe on 06-04-2010 18:02 - Registered
	Second thoughts on Dr. Peter Khans talk Dear Brendan,    Thank you for sharing your thoughts. When I first came acrosse the Baha i Faith and eventually accepted it and became enrolled in it I simply accepted the whole package so to speak. First it was not clear to me 100% why and how the Universal House of Justice was infallible but I just accepted it and believed it because it was part of the package. I did, over time, however get a clearer picture as to why it is infallibe and how and that I very much see it as Dr. Khan describes it and also nearly as simple as he does. The infallibility comes because it is the highest institution of our Faith. We can not put a claim to a higher institution than the Universal House of Justice. Once they made a decision that is it, we have to accept it. This is one way of how I see the infalibility. The second way I see it is that they as the highest authority of our Faith have the closest access to the holy texts of our religion so they are guided by them and that is how I see it. This means they have the last word if we dare to put a quest to them. We can maybe ask for clarification but we can not really argue with them. If they say so that is it and we have to accept it. So I see it twofold. One is that they have the last word and second that they have the closest access to the Holy Texts of our religion. When we come to the point where we can accept that without feeling we have to argue about it we will be under their guidance. Thank you and enjoy the day. Eva Leuthe / Biel-Bienne / Switzerland

	10. Written by Brendan Cook on 08-04-2010 00:37 - Registered
	Second thoughts on Dr. Peter Khans talk Eva,    Your message is so polite and so gracious, I can't bring myself to argue with you. On the other hand, I also can't agree with you, so I'm afraid that we'll have to leave it there. You and I obviously see these issues in a very different light, and I thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective.    There's only one small point where I'd take issue with what you say. You say that no one is closer to the scriptures than the members of the House, and I'm not sure if that's true. And I'm not sure if that was ever what the central figures of the Faith intended. Of course some members of the House know more about the texts and languages of the scriptures than others, but that's not to say that this learning is their principal qualification. The Universal House of Justice was never meant to be made up of the nine most learned Baha'is, or even the nine most learned Baha'is who don't happen to be female, if you know what I mean.     The central figures believed that the House would function better if its membership wasn't restricted to the people who had studied the scriptures most closely. And in that sense it's not a criticism of the current Nine to say that they're not always the closest to the scriptures. But that's how it is all the same.    Thank you for taking the time to write. And I hope you enjoy your day as well. I studied for two years with a man born and raised in Basel, and he had nothing but good to say about Switzerland.    Brendan