Bahais Online - Truth: A Dialogue

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.

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.

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?”

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?”

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.

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!

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.

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…

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.

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.

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…”

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.”

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: 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.

	1. Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 08-04-2007 23:06 - Registered
	Pre-emptive disenrollment Excellent dialogue, Brendan. I admire your fairness in presenting Monos' side of the dialogue, representing Baha'i conservatism-fundamentalism. I also admire your tenacity in sticking with the Baha'i community and attempting to find some resolution to your own exile from the faith community you wish to be a part of. If nothing else, you can take pride in being the Baha'i world's first "pre-emptive disenrollment." The term itself speaks volumes about the current Baha'i leadership's desire to keep their grip on the reins of power and in the process keep the religion in a permanent state of stagnation. http://bahaisonline.net

	3. Written by Brendan Cook on 08-04-2007 23:04 - Registered
	Fiction or Non-Fiction? Priscilla, You ask an interesting question, one that I think is also relative to my dialogue Obedience, which I recommend as a companion piece. The dialogue is fiction, but even fiction is inspired by life. The account Diplous gives of being denied a card parallels my own, and it should be clear I am sympathetic to many of his arguments about community and belonging. And while Monos does not correspond to any single person, it should be obvious that his arguments all came from real people. In the sense that I don't come up with this by sitting alone in a dark room, it is drawn from life, but it is also dramatized. In the end it is the ideas that matter: are they interesting or compelling? Where and from whom I derived them is secondary. Brendan

	4. Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 15-04-2007 01:30 - Guest
	Fiction or Non-Fiction? Brendan, Thanks for the clarification. I don’t use the terms fiction and non-fiction in any rigid sense. The two categories are certainly always strongly mixed with each other. But I do think they represent something meaningful about the basic orientation of the writer. Both fiction and non-fiction are about the truth. I also think that the facts of individual cases of Baha’is being removed from the Faith or monitored or denied administrative entrance into the community are important, and I didn’t want to read your piece as representing a particular case if it didn’t. I’m just recently building up some understanding of what has been happening in that regard. But I understand that the main purpose of this piece is to represent (and challenge) ideas that hold strong sway in the current functioning of the community. I also liked the dialogue on obedience. One thing that has struck me strongly in reading about these debates (and experiencing them) is that the literalist/fundamentalist approach to the writings unintentionally undermines Baha’u’llah’s position and authority. He seems to become just the first link in the chain of reasoning that leads to the other, more recent, authorities and ultimately to the House. It is an effect opposite the intention of your character Monos but which follows from his approach. Baha’u’llah said women are counted as men in this dispensation, but later authorities protect us from misinterpreting that to mean women can serve on the House. There are many other examples of this and I am not arguing the correctness of this particular one, just making a general point about the pattern. The authoritative statements of each later authority further limit the meaningfulness of the original Word—a limit which contradicts Baha’u’llah’s own writings about the inexhaustible ocean of the word of God. At least, this is how it strikes me now.

	5. Written by Brendan Cook on 15-04-2007 02:48 - Registered
	Authority Priscilla, I think that you may have a point. It's not a simple matter, but I've heard a few things which tend to confirm what you say. I once heard something like this a very respected member of the Canadian Baha'i Community -- it doesn't matter who precisely, but it's important that he so respected. He said that the Covenant exists so that people will obey the present authority in the Faith without appealing to an earlier one. The example he gave was that when Shoghi Effendi was Guardian, it was useless for anyone to say "Abdu'l-Baha said this." It didn't matter what Abdu'l-Baha might have said, because Shoghi Effendi was in charge now -- that's the Covenant. Just to be sure I understood this, I asked this respected Baha'i to elaborate. If the Covenant means you can't quote Abdu'l-Baha against Shoghi Effendi, does it also mean you can't quote Baha'u'llah against the House? He seemed a little uncomfortable with how blunt this was, but he still answered 'yes'. So if the House says something, it doesn't matter what quote from Baha'u'llah you dig up? That souns a little like what you were talking about. Glad you enjoyed both dialogues. Brendan

	8. Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 26-06-2007 09:32 - Guest
	History Thanks for pointing me here, Brendan. I think your writing will have historical significance, does have it. You capture the inner and outer dialogs of many I suspect. Fear of covenant breaking has a lot of Bahai brains frozen like that of a victim of dementia. The Covenant is a clever device of mental control. But you are blessed with the ability to focus on truth instead of fear. Well done. Frank