My Notes:

This next installment of the LA Class deals with the aftermath of the letter written by Dr. Denis MacEoin regarding the ineffective outreach of the Faith and its flirtation with irrelevancy to an ever advancing world.

There are a wide variety of reactions so I’ll let you read them for yourself. But once again, I’m simply floored by how much time has stood still within the Baha’i community. If no one told me, I would never imagine that this discussion had taken place 30 years ago. Enjoy.

If this is your first newsletter, you can read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[START DOCUMENT]

[Ed. personal address removed]

Vol. IV, No. 2
February, 1979

Denis MacEoin’s remarkable and outspoken indictment of misplaced emphasis in the Baha’i Community which he characterized as growth fixation, socially irrelevant and politically naive received both grim agreement and some angry opposition during the lengthy January 28, meeting of our class. At this point, we suggest that you re-read the letter which appeared in the last newsletter.

As the discussion began, Tony Lee expressed the view that Baha’i Communities have two responsibilities. The first of these is to insure their own survival by bringing in new members and ordering their own community life. The second of these is to actively work to assist their fellow men. This active concern for society, however, is usually ignored or forgotten as communities concentrate on developing their own internal structure.

It is not enough, Lee argued, to say that Baha’is as individuals are free to engage in activities which are socially oriented. If this were the case, what would distinguish us from say, the Unitarian Church or the Society of Friends (Quakers), both of whose members are more socially active than the Baha’is are. In fact, these two groups have developed a reputation for social concern which is widely respected. While it is true that the Baha’i Faith should lead to a spiritual awareness which other religions do not have access to, this awareness has not automatically produced a heightened social consciousness. In fact, the Baha’i Communities in the United States generally have a lower level of involvement in society than other religious groups do. Lee argued that the essence of MacEoin’s argument is that Baha’i Communities must stand firmly and publicly for their own principles, even when (or perhaps, especially when) they are controversial, unpopular or risky. Too often the Baha’i principles are presented in a manner which is deliberately bland and non-threatening. So bland and unthreatening that they become irrelevant.

Greg Wahlstrom agreed, but added that if Baha’is wait for their administrative institutions to take the lead in social activism, they could be waiting a long, long time. Instead, individual Baha’is ought to concentrate on doing things that clearly reflect Baha’i principles in their daily lives, with the assumption that this will affect others. A bland presentation of the Faith will attract bland people, while a more active posture will bring a more activist element into the Faith.

But, David Young took exception to some of MacEoin’s argument. He felt that the English scholar’s thesis was the wrong approach to instilling life in the Baha’i Community. Young argued that what is needed is the development of spiritually mature Baha’is and that an emphasis on social action wold lead the community in the wrong direction. Social activism should be the product of social concern and not the other way around.

Amin Banani was also among those who took issue with some points of Denis’ letter. He asked that the class consider that the Baha’is represent a tiny portion of mankind, but that we are a group with high ideals and ambitions which take in the re-making of all of human society. As the Faith grows in size and influence, it must pass through various stages. He said that the principles of non-involvement in politics, which MacEoin has cited a cause for Baha’is shying away from current social concerns, should be seen as a tactic which Baha’is must use in this stage of Baha’i history, rather than a permanent policy.

Dr. Banani noted that in the early days of the Faith, the Baha’is were quite political. The fact that, in 1875, Abdu’l-Baha composed the book, The Secret of Divine Civilization, which was a highly political essay giving advice to the Shah, and the fact that in 1890, He composed the work named A Treatise on Politics, are both very significant. But it is also significant that both of these works were composed anonymously. Abdu’l-Baha often encouraged Baha’is in Iran to be politically active, especially in the early days of the Persian constitutional movement (the early 1900′s). All this changed as Abdu’l-Baha saw that the constitutional movement was being co-opted by foreign powers. At that point, He began writing strong letters to the Baha’is of Iran forbidding them to become involved in politics and ordering them to withdraw from the constitutional movement. The Baha’i doctrine of non-involvement in politics was born. Again, Dr. Banani expressed the view that this is a temporary policy which must change as the position of the Baha’i Community changes. How, for example, will we behave when 65% of the population of a country is a Baha’i?

It was also pointed out that the question of non-involvement in politics is a flexible one even now. Obedience to government also has its limits. For instance, at one point the Gestapo in Nazi Germany informed the National Spiritual Assembly there that it would be permitted to continue its activities and maintain its legal status only if it provided the names of Baha’is of Jewish extraction to the police so that they could be detained. At the instruction of the Guardian, the National Assembly flatly refused. As a result, the institution was dissolved by the government and the Faith and its literature banned. Even so, the Baha’is hid their literature and went underground, again in violation of the law.

Flor Geola of Manhattan Beach suggested that he nub of the problem is the lack of any clear cut definition in the Faith of what is political and what is not. Most Baha’is are not sure and a lot of energy is dissipated on sorting out what constitutes political activity. Most Assemblies are devoting whatever limited resources they have to community problems and can spare no energy for taking on social issues, Dr. Geola said.

Tony Lee pointed out that when Abdu’l-Baha came to this country in 1912, He was not afraid to speak out on controversial political issues. He made radical statements on such topics as women’s suffrage, labor-management disputes, the American electoral system, the rights of soldiers, national sovereignty, etc. Now, ironically, American Baha’is would be reluctant to make these same statements for fear of violating their religious principles. This leaves the community with an inward-looking stance, concentrating all of its attention on Feasts and children’s classes and ignoring all outside issues. This misses one of the major points of the Faith which is intended to transform all of society, not just be indifferent to it.

Mehrdad Amanat of Santa Monica also spoke for the need for the Baha’i Community to take a more active role in society. He asked, if the Baha’i Community is not actively opposing injustice and oppression around the world, then what are we doing? Has the administrative machinery of the Faith become and end in itself, rather than a means to an end?

Dr. Banani acknowledged that the Baha’i Community has become introspective, but said that the answer to this is not to adopt a trend toward latching on to current social issues. He said the essence of MacEoin’s letter is that the Baha’i Community will feel the pressure of events and take stands and feel the pull of conflicting opinions. This is a healthy process, and as the community is drawn into it, as a result of its growing influence in the world, we will see some of the present introspection dissolve.

Mr. Lee suggested that the issue is one of degree rather than of kind. It is clear that the Baha’i Community should not allow itself to be sucked into every controversy which hits the headlines. But, the community must remain deeply concerned and highly aware of the society around it, and remain sophisticated enough to define major issues for which their should be a clear Baha’i position and speak out on them. He added that the goal of making the Faith a world religion has been largely accomplished. We must now turn to the role of the community in soceity at large. The mindless multiplication of Assemblies and localities is a meaningless goal unless those Assemblies and centers are involved in transforming those societies in which they find themselves.

The discussion continued with the class touching such topics as the price which any believer must pay for espousing views such as those which Mr. MacEoin has bravely put forward. A high price in misunderstanding, suspicions and accusations seem inevitable. On the other hand, some objected,we cannot afford to see ourselves as “beleaguered, victimized martyrs” or we will defeat our own purpose and hamper our effectiveness.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS DEPARTMENT
During the course of our discussion, it was suggested that we mount a Baha’i studies conference or seminar in the Southern California area. Although most of the resulting tak was tentative in nature, it was proposed that Baha’i scholars from overseas be invited to attend, and that the session (perhaps to be held on a weekend) be sponsored by the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, which would be asked to ante up the money to pay for its costs. If successful, the conference could be the launching pad for the formation of an American groups similar to the Canadian Association for Studies on the Baha’i Faith. After chewing over this matter for a while, we decided that Tony Lee would write up a proposal and submit it to the NSA for consideration.

MORE LETTERS!!!!!!!
Mr. Jeol Suffens has kindly shared with us a letter which he wrote to Mr. Denis MacEoin after our last class:

We took up your letter of January 7th in our class of January 28th, which will be reported in our next newsletter. Unfortunately, we did not decide beforehand how to structure the discussion so that, for example, we barely touched on a question of which “non-political” movements, if any (!), we should be associated with. We talked for hours about how Baha’is might take a stand, collectively, on the leading issues of the day, but made little progress on this score since we were unable to resolve the question of even whether we should take stands on such issues at all. The results were disappointing to me and I’ve talked with Tony since, and hope that you might perhaps be interested in some of my own thoughts.

As to the question of Baha’is associating with suitable, like-minded non-Baha’i movements, it seems to me that the statements of the Guardian are quite clear. On the institutional level, such association is a positive duty: the National Spiritual Assembly should, where they can and following the example of Abdu’l-Baha, use it as an “indirect” teaching method for the spiritually less receptive, “gradually” inducing in them an awareness of the full “obligations” of the NSAs and of “organized Baha’i communities” to collaborate with such movements in order to “imbue (them) with the spirit of power and strength.” Moreover, such an undertaking is not extraneous but “should be regarded as… fulfilling… a vital and necessary function.” (Baha’i Administration, pp.124-6) It is a “vital task”, too, for Local Spiritual Assemblies to demonstrate “through association with all liberal and humanitarian movements, the universality and comprehensiveness of their Faith.” (Principles of Baha’i Administration, p.45)

No doubt, you are aware of other such statements, whether directed at our institutions or individual Baha’is. In connection with the latter, I can’t help but mention a tribute paid by the Guardian to Martha Root. Among those of her activities which “constitute a compelling evidence of what the power of Baha’u'llah can achieve,” he cites her international travels, her contacts with royalty and so forth, and also “her close affiliation with international organizations, peace societies, humanitarian movements and Esperantists circles.” (Baha’i Administration, p.174) Naturally, statements of Baha’i policy in such matters, such as those I’ve quoted, are almost always found with others warning against associating with organizations which are sectarian, partisan or “political” — and with the proviso that Baha’is not extend assistance to such organizations at the expense of their obligation to support their own institutions. Otherwise, Baha’is are even encouraged to support their own institutions. Otherwise, Baha’is are even encouraged to initiate undertakings “not specifically designated as Baha’i” (Baha’i Administration, p.126)

But what directions do these words suggest for us today? As you point out in a striking example, the peoples of the world are unlikely to rally to our Cause because they have witnessed a tree-planting ceremony; and such self-serving publicity as you’ve written about is already being detected by then and, quite properly, will be held against us. On the other hand, the ideas behind World Peace Day and World Religion Day, though valid, appear old-hat to people searching for “relevant” answers to global problems. In fact, so abstract do they seem that even — or, should I say, especially — the Baha’is are frequently unable to see how they tie in with concrete social concerns. Yet, as you point out, we Baha’is cannot afford to be so “out of touch,” for not only does that impede our teaching efforts, but it contributes heavily to apathy within the Baha’i community as well.

So then, where do Baha’is stand with respect to contemporary “hot” issues? During our class discussion it was pointed out that in the US (and, no doubt, the UK), certain very specific, highly controversial issues, such as court-ordered busing of students to achieve racially-integrated schools as required by current interpretations of law (Maybe Britain’s parallel is the immigration issue.), are drawn in such an antagonistic fashion that it would be a mistake for Baha’is publicly to take sides. Yet, at the other extreme, it is simply not sufficient to deal with the race issue only in its most generalized form, piously mouthing slogans like “the oneness of mankind” and “abolition of prejudice.” I tried to suggest a middle course to the class, taking as my example the manner in which Abdu’l-Baha dealt with the question of strikes: He sided with neither labor nor management (managing, in fact, to find fault with both), but instead on dealing with the problem on a more fundamental level — in this case, the level of present laws and economic arrangements. In doing so, He invoked not only generally recognized principles of justice and equity, but also called forth a specifically Baha’i teaching in proposing that “rules and laws should be established to regulate the excessive fortunes of certain masses.” He went on, however, to warn against the consequences of absolute equality, summoning here the principle of moderation. He asserted the right of the courts and the government to intervene in labor disputes, making the point that such difficulties “produce a general detriment” beyond their effects on the parties involved; thus did He carefully distinguish affairs of public concern from entirely private matters, “with which the government should not occupy itself.” Finally, along the way He offered schemes for profit-sharing, pensions and the like. Might not this be our paradigm?

It may be that not every public question requires that we come out with a Baha’i “position paper”; probably some issues are clear-cut enough to call us tinto the streets (or at least into a newspaper’s columns) in protest. But these “fighting issues” have yet to be precisely defined. The situation demands a thorough examination, by means of a wide-ranging airing-out of all pressing social questions from a Baha’i perspective. This won’t happen unless the Baha’is recognize the need for it.

PS Also apropos is the reason given by Shoghi Effendi for writing one of his general letters (for quote, see The Priceless Pearl, pp. 212-213). We do “stand for” something, after all.

AND STILL MORE LETTERS!!!!!!!!

Mr. Robert Parry (Department of Religious Studies, Furness College, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK) writes:

I have been receiving the bulletin ever since I picked up a copy at Dinny and Mandy Gronich’s place some month’s back. It is refreshing to know that somewhere in the Baha’i Community at large there is a printed platform for expressing and discussing views about the Faith, other than the usual safe discussions so common at fire-sides.

The content and level of discussion broached in your paper is, I am sure, seen by many as time-wasting, perhaps heretical and spiritually dangerous. It raises issues deriving from man’s arrogant and ungrateful nature — ungrateful for the revelation graciously given by God.

I believe this attitude is, in itself, dangerous and is nowhere endorsed by the Faith, as a whole. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be the ethos of the community at large. Where expansion of numbers is primary, merely believing the revelation is a sufficient condition and clarification of issues becomes a side-issue, perhaps not even that. Thus the ethos of “no questions” arises from internal policy rather than any serious dialogue with the Revelation.

Another point is the notion of believing. In forced expansion and concentration on growth, the emphasis is on acceptance — a whole-hearted, yet restricted “yes” to the Revelation. This restricted “yes” may well constitute the initial step in the act of faith, yet the danger arises when the community demands a constant repetition of this restricted “yes.”

I agree with Lee’s notion of dialogue, though I prefer to see it in two terms, that is, the believer and history. And on another level as an interaction between questions implicit in the human situation and the answers given in the Revelation. This does not imply that the Writings are some Divine Text-Book, as some of the contributors to your last bulletin feared they were being seen. The work of the Baha’is is, I feel, that of correlation, the correlation between questions and answers. This means we must be familiar with the human situation historically manifested in various systematic disciplines such as history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics, politics, etc., etc., and, of course, familiar with the Revelation. An excessive preoccupation with the Revelation loses touch with the “world” and on the other hand, an excessive preoccupation with the “world” loses touch with what may be decisive for the interpretation of our life.

I suppose that the question that has to be asked is about the weight attributed to each of the terms of the correlative relationship. Is it sufficient to have a theoretical grasp of the human situation in its manifestations alongside the required existential involvement with the revelation? I don’t think we could accept the opposite, that is, an existential involvement with the human situation along side a theoretical grasp of the Faith.

Anyway, I think your bulletin goes a long way in attempting to answer the former qustion, and in attempting to answer a further question, namely the status and extent of the human situation, with its questions. You enter the time-honored Revelation/Reason, Faith/Knowledge, Grace/Nature controversy. I hope that the bulletin has many birthdays.

THE NEXT CLASS…

The next deepening class will be held on Sunday, February 18th at 2:30 PM at the luxurious apartment of Ms. Sherna Hough and Ms. Lisa Janti, [Ed. private address]. The class will be in two sections: First, Mr. Richard Kownacki will present a paper on “The Political Dimensions of the Babi Movement”, and this will be followed by another discussion of Denis MacEoin’s now famous letter of January 7, 1979. Dr. David Young will lead the latter discussion.

[END DOCUMENT]

Related Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.

My Notes:

It has been far too long since we heard the whine of the time machine and headed back to the 1970′s to join the LA Baha’i studies class.

This latest edition is wholly made up of letters from members and readers around the world. It offers a glimpse into the ideas that other Baha’is (outside of the immediate LA group) had.

The first is a wag of the finger about the relationship what was described in a previous class between the Baha’is of Iran and the then, Shah of Iran. Here is a brief account of the history the monarch’s of Iran and their reaction to the Baha’i Faith.

The second is a reaction to the previous discussion on Degrees of Reality. Personally, I found this letter very insightful. It made me think of the Baha’i view of evolution as well as how incomprehensible the next world must be. It also made me think of this segment from a scifi TV show where a human is trying to explain to non-human (“God like”) beings what temporal linear existence is like.

The final letter is from Denis MacEoin, a giant of Baha’i theology who after some very nasty run ins with the “appointed arm” decided to become inactive and leave the community. Reading his words, it is hard to believe that what MacEoin wrote is 30 years old! His letter is by far the longest but it is the primary reason why I put this edition together after so much procrastination. A must read.

No wonder that the next class will be a discussion of this very letter. Can’t wait for that!

If this is your first newsletter, you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[START DOCUMENT]

[Ed. personal address removed]

January, 1979
Vol. IV No. 1

Our newsletter this time consists of several stimulating letters which we have received from abroad. We are delighted to see that we have such an active and involved, international readership. Anyone else out there who has something that he wants to get off his chest, just drop us a line.

We hope that our readers will read the essay which we have received from Mr. Denis MacEoin of Cambridge, England, with particular care. He has raised a number of issues central to the crisis which the Baha’i Community is facing today and are in urgent need of discussion. Your comments will be welcomed.

THE NEXT CLASS WILL BE HELD on Sunday, January 28th at 3:00 PM at the unworthy hovel of Anthony Lee [Ed. personal address]. The topic will be a discussion of Mr. MacEoin’s essay (The one attached.) and it should be lively. You all come, yaheah?

FROM ENGLAND, ONE READER WRITES:

‘I was deeply grieved when I saw the following statement published in your last newsletter: “As for the Shah himself, his continued reign seems to be the only hope the Baha’is have avoiding full scale persecution.”

‘As you mention a few sentences later, the Shah would not mind sacrificing Baha’is is for his own protection. But, it seems to me that this was a weak voice and was not the opinion of the majority. So after all your experiences and discussions, still the majority believes that the continued reign of the Shah is the only hope for the Baha’is. That is very sad. If the friends, aside from the truth of the matter, were only a little wise they would not publish such eloquent observations which will only cause the Baha’is to suffer the same accusations which yet decry.

‘Can you be any more contradictory than to say on page five, while claiming to be intellectual observers, that Baha’is of Iran have confused obedience to government with support for the Shah. (finding them at fault); and then, to say in the next paragraph that the existence of the Shah is better for the Baha’is than any other alternative? Further, in the same paragraph, you express regret for the opposition of the intellectual classes…

‘Those who claim to have logical minds, even if they want to speak falsehoods, should speak in such a way that their statements will at least appear acceptable. Perhaps it is better for you to speak only about such things as ‘African Traditional Religions’ which are of concern to no one, and cease discussing subjects which will only help to worsen the unfortunate situation of those Baha’is in Shiraz who were accused of having participated in pro-Shah demonstrations.

LETTERS WE GET LETTERS :

Mr. Kent Beveridge of Vienna, Austria writes:

“The discussions as contained in the newsletters are something that I have missed since I left the U.S. (a little over seven and one half years ago): a free wheeling discussion about something vital to the lives of all concerned, where no holds are barred (or at least few are barred). I read the four points formulated at the beginning of the class upon which it is based. Such opinions are of basic importance to our Faith, as the beloved Master said “The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.” I therewith arrive at a different conclusion than that Soheil Samimi of Portugal as expressed in a much finer form in Volume II No. 4. Perhaps she was referring to a newslettar that I don’t have? I haven’t noticed any “scathing remarks!”

“The newsletter summaries have whetted my appetite to take part in your class one day. For a summary — even one as good as these are (my compliments to Bob Ballenger for a difficult jobo well done) — can never be as good as the discussion itself.

“I was especially impressed with the statement that the “Baha’i administration is, in current practice, a dictatorship under which dissent is suppressed and individual Baha’is are cowed into silence.” and the following talk. Such a topic would not be salonfähig (an Austro-German term meaning respectable enough to the front parlor) among the study classes in Austria. Not that he subject is taboo. It’s just relegated into the private sphere, where it really does amount to backbiting. This is a topic which is literally crying out to be discussed in an intellectual manner, as we cannot afford to sit back and wait until the answers are brought “down from the mountain” and presented to us. I do feel that one important aspect was missed, however. The institutions are also made up of individuals, and are not internally the same united front which is presented to the outside world. This I know from my experience as a member of the Spiritual Assembly of Vienna, which has a community of 140 Baha’is — not much in your neck of the woods, but one of the largest Baha’i communities in Europe.

“It is difficult to put my feelings into words, but the portrayal of “the Assembly” as a anonymous, brooding, Orwellian body, watching over each and every believer in order to stifle the seeds of dissent even before they start to sprout was a trifle disturbing. However, it gave me a lot of food for thought, and I will meditate on the relationship between the believers and the institutions intensively.”

Mr. Gene Hendershot of Berberati, Central African Empire writes:

“The last newsletter on Degrees of Reality reached me today and Betty Conow touched a field that has always interested me. However, she didn’t get involved in my specific area of interest, but instead seemed to he covering several different topics, some of which didn’t seem to be directly concerned with the main topic. But, I don’t want to get involved in that since I don’t have enough information to judge. I can’t say that I realty understood it from the little information that was sent out…

“What interests me though is the idea of the Cosmos, the totality of existence. Use whatever word you like, Cosmos seems as good as any. We know that God created a lot of different “worlds” and that our physical, material universe is only one of them. It is the only physical one and the only one with time. Therefore, why can’t we simply say that the Cosmos is all of the “worlds of God”, plus God Himself….

“As I understand it, in this world all progress is related to time. As time passes, we try to make progress — physical, intellectual and spiritual. Can anyone explain progress to me without relating it to time? I have tried, but I cannot understand progress otherwise. And yet, we know that there is progress in the other worlds, from one state of existence to another and towards God. I would appreciate any comments on this. For me, this is one example of different degrees of reality. Here, the understanding of progress is based on time. However, the Manifestation improves our comprehension of progress by relating it to other worlds, but still our understanding is limited. Obviously, the Manifestation seas the reality of progress differently then we do….

“The use of a circle in describing the Cosmos is the only way we have of showing no beginning and no end, that is, timelessness. But, we know that this is the first world of the individual soul and that before this there was a collective soul. Does this mean that in the world of the collective soul there is also time, since it comes before? Or, is this only a way of expressing it symbolical taking account of Our limited comprehension? Are all of these worlds existing in the same “time” in the eyes of God? In which case, all life is one, has always existed, and the future is already here now. Thus the All-Knowing God has knowledge of past and future, since there is no past and future.

“If all man progress until they attain the presence of God, what does this do with the idea of heaven and hell? If there is no time in the next worlds, then all souls are already in the presence of God. I guess what I am showing is that, as I said before, I don’t understand the concept of timelessness.”

KEEP THOSE CARDS AND LETTERS COMING IN, FOLKS !

[Ed. illegible text]
Cambridge
England
7 January 1979

Dear Friends,

I have read your latest (November 1978) Newsletter with more than usual interest and sympathy, and feel that I would like to add a few words in its wake. I shall not try to expand on Tony’s account of our seminar here in Cambridge, much as it is tempting to do so — from the report in your Newsletter, he seems to have done a thorough job of leading you through a very complicated set of issues raised there. The full report, as stated, is available, and dwells more thoroughly on the major topics mentioned by Tony.

I was most interested by the discussion reported on pages 3-4 of your summary. As Tony knows, this is a topic about which I personally feel very strongly. In the simplest terms, I fear that the Baha’i faith as it stands today is in very real danger of becoming irrelevant to the problems faced by people in the world outside — if it has not already become so. As the faith has become more and more organized, with, as you so rightly point out, a growing obsession with figures, numbers, and statistics for their own sake, and a tendency to evaluate the significance of the faith as a religion in terms which have no bearing whatever on this (such as how many languages literature has been ‘translated’ into), we seem to have become more and more introspective and withdrawn, exclusive rather than all-embracing. As a result, most Baha’is appear to be completely ignorant of the issues facing modern man. And, what is worse, they don’t care — if you suggest that hey read, say, Marouse [Ed. unclear word], most Baha’is react with a disdainful, slightly superior shrug: ‘we have the writings, we don’t need to waste our time on the book of false physicians’. As one friend, for some time an NSA secretary (not in the U.K.) put it to me: ‘nothing worth reading has ever been written in the twentieth century’. In fact, it is not even a case of whether people are up on Patti Smith or Malcolm Bradbury’s latest novel, they have yet to read Marx or early Koestler! Instead, the community is locked into an obsession with issues which were vital before or just after the first World War and, what is worse, are a lot less forthright now about issues such as war, poverty, race, and so forth that they were then. To speak about race integration in the States in the 20′s was genuinely progressive. Last year at a Youth Conference in the U.K. (facing a major race problem and the threat of growing fascism — the country’s fascist party is the fourth largest in the country), an NSA member told the youth that we should have nothing to do with the issue of race, since it is political!

In recent years, I feel, the situation has become even more serious (in this country at least). Whereas about ten or more years ago, the Baha’i community tried (in however outdated a fashion) to be involved with society around it, we now seem to think about and talk about and be told about nothing but goals, organization, conferences, and other purely internal matters — very few of them even of a spiritual or genuinely religious nature. Your phrase ‘shopping list’ goals sums up very well indeed the utterly meaningless hole we seem to have dug ourselves into. The Five Year Plan in this country has been a mindless race after numbers, constant reshuffles, juggling with statistics, bombastic sermons which have passed beyond banality to the depths of uninspiration. Success is judged in teh most material and sterile terms, important long-term tasks of the community have been shelved in order to win insignificant short-term goals, and above all, everybody knows that we will ‘win’ the Plan, whatever the real result. Beneath the surface, fairly large numbers of people are withdrawing, even larger numbers have become inactive, leaving things in the hands of thick-skinned administrators whom we could as well hire from an employment agency, the teaching work becomes more and more geared to attracting the less spiritual, and the circle becomes a spiral.

Worst of all, I fear, is that the Baha’is are gradually gaining a reputation for hypocrisy and self-interestedness. To give one example, several years ago, when the troubles began in Northern Ireland, a few Baha’is gave help for some time at a refugee centre, along with other groups. Despite the fact that the Quakers, who ran the centre, had asked for no publicity, the Baha’is were the only group to seek and obtain newspaper publicity for their work with refugees. Since then, the Baha’is as a group, in Northern Ireland have done nothing to help anybody, have never even condemned the violence publicly, and have held numerous conferences and teaching activities which even the believers are beginning to avoid. To give just one other example: the Public Relations Officer of the U.K. Baha’i Community recently told a Mayor, in the course of a tree-planting (!) ceremony (which seems to be the most radical activity we engage in) that ‘Baha’is the world over were working hard in thousands of centres to help improve the environment and the quality of life of all the inhabitants of the earth. They were also involved in efforts to resist the spread of deserts which themselves resulted from the wholesale destruction of trees. At world level, through United Nations agencies, the Baha’i International Community was constantly involved in this work of improving the environment’. As any Baha’i should know, this is, quite simply, dishonest and unethical — but this type of exaggeration and distortion, coupled with the fact that we only ever become involved in any activity where there is a chance of publicity for ourselves, will, I feel, soon be regarded as the chief characteristic of the Baha’is, if it is not already in many quarters.

To a large degree, this lack of involvement in live issues is linked to the fact that many contemporary social issues (such as those mentioned in your Newsletter, and others, such as unemployment, prisoners of conscience, the union) have, or appear to have, a high political content. Since Baha’is have failed to define what they mean by politics in the context of ‘non-involvement in politics’, they are now taking the easiest course, which is to avoid anything which may be remotely political — which means, in effect, just about any relevant social or humanitarian issue today. By dealing with ‘safe’ issues (such as tree-planting) and ‘pie in the sky’ policies, we manage to preserve intact our integrity on the principle of non-involvement in politics, even if to do so we have to sacrifice other basic principles regarding war, racialism, sex inequality, tyranny, freedom of conscience, economic adjustment, and so on. The non-involvement tag is our get-out pass from just about everything, and the more we use it the more out of touch and irrelevant we become.

The simple fact is that, in a real sense, the Baha’i faith is one of the most political movements around. After all, principles such as the ending of absolute national sovereignty, world government, universal currency, universal language, sex equality, racial integration, disarmament, world tribunal, anti-communism, retention of constitutional monarchism, the abolition of non-Baha’i religious legal systems (such as the Islamic sharia), the retention of a class system, the abolition of tariffs, international police force, and so on are among the hottest political issues around. Do we just dismember the faith, trimming off any principle or concept that seems likely to offend the political susceptibilities of someone or some government somewhere, or do we accept that we have these principles and that we intend to establish them, destroying, in the process, any other system or ideology which seeks to oppose them? We should also bear in mind that the apparently non-political activity of just teaching the faith is highly political. Quite apart from problems such as teaching race unity, say, South Africa, it is obvious that they will be able to (in theory, at least) to exert pressure on society as a whole, particularly in a democracy. It is hardly enough to say that we are ‘non-political’ — after all, we do plan to bring into being a series of Baha’i states and, in the end, a Baha’i world — no less extreme than the aim of every Marxist. And, in the same way that nto everyone jumps with joy at the thought of his country becoming Marxist, so we can hardly expect that there will be universal rejoicing at the news that the Baha’i faith is becoming a threat to the established political system. We may say that the old order is destroying itself and that we intend merely to step in when it collapses, not to actively work for its destruction — but take another look at Marx’s theory of the dialectic of history: capitalism destroys itself in order to give way to communism. Instead of engaging in violent revolution to speed up the process, we ‘teach the faith’.

Tragically, however, in order to pretend not to be concerned with politics, we have more and more adopted a line of expediency in our relationship with the outside world. This has reached such proportions that Baha’is cannot officially be involved with a totally non-aligned organization such as Amnesty International because it might give rise to a false impression. As a result, we are totally uninvolved with one of the major evils of this century — political and religious oppression coupled with wrongful imprisonment, torture, and execution on the most appalling scale — despite the numerous statements in the writings about opposing injustice and tyranny. Baha’u'llah wrote directly to rulers to reprimand them for their brutality and repression, while we today pose for pictures with Pinochet and Amin (thank God for your reference to the Pinochet photograph – I thought I was the only person who had noticed it). Yet, the moment anyone lifts a finger to harm Baha’is, in however a minor way, there is a universal outcry and we appeal for aid to the UN and suchlike. The Iranian regime has been massacring its people for decades, and thousands are dying in the present troubles, but the only thing to excite protests from the Baha’is has been the threat of violence to themselves. No mention is made of the fact that Jews or Christians have been threatened or attacked. The fact is that we seem to judge the justice of a regime according to how well it treats the Baha’is. An injust regime treating us well is tolerated or even extolled, while a popular regime which deprives us of certain freedoms (perhaps along with other religious groups) is regarded as evil. No one has asked, for example, what the people of Iran, as a whole, want, but what would ensure the safety of the Baha’is there; so if thousands of Shi’i Muslims are killed, who cares? — they deserve it anyway for having persecuted the Baha’is.

As you say in your Newsletter, the Shah’s ‘continued reign seems to be the only hope the Baha’is have of avoiding full-scale persecution’. There was a time when this need not have been so. The fact is that the Baha’is of Iran have done nothing to help their fellow countryman inside or outside of the country. They have been content to benefit economically and in other ways from the present regime and have gained a real reputation as an inwar-looking community which would sacrifice the country for its own ends. Baha’is actually hate the Muslims and try to have as little as possible to do with them. And they seem unable to understand the impression they create. Many years ago, when some Baha’i villages in Adhirbayjan [Azerbaijan] were suffering from a boycott, a well-known and [illegible].

No one could understand when I pointed out that this would only worsen the situation in the long term. Not only this, but there is a serious level of class distinction between the Baha’is in Ran, a fact which has not escaped the rest of the population, especially the intellectuals. I have lived in a reasonably wealthy Baha’i home in Tihran while, in a room underneath, another Baha’i family with two children lived on bread and yogurt with no furniture – and this is not abnormal. There are many Baha’i meetings in Iran at which a 400 dollar suit would be more of a passport than Baha’i credentials. I don’t wish to be mistaken – some of the most wonderful Baha’is in the world (and some of my dearest friends) live in Iran but the community is known for its wealth, inequality, and exclusiveness.

In general, a deradicalization of the Baha’i faith has occurred over recent years. Like many other originally radical religious movements, the faith has moved from a position of active hostility to the existing order (under the Babis) to non-violent condemnation of abuses in politics and religion, to a passive acceptance of the establishment and, of late, a positive attempt to become integrated with the establishment. This latter development is typical of an originally sectarian movement which becomes a denomination, and is generally a consequence (as has taken place in Iran) of second and third generation prosperity, the removal of charisma, and the growth of organizational elements. Baha’is in many places now show considerable eagerness to become respectable. Being a member of a quaint, exotic religious movement is usually acceptable in the first generation, but it can become an embarrassment to later believers who are successful in society and derive benefits from it. We have now reached that stage in several places. To give one example: almost two years ago, the LSA here suggested to the NSA that every LSA in this country should have 5 pounds (about 9 dollars) to the Venezuela earthquake disaster fund; the suggestion was dismissed on the grounds that we were not concerned with such matters. Not long after, Assemblies and groups throughout the country were asked to give their assistance to government bodies organizing the Queen’s Jubilee Fund, collecting money for British youth clubs and organizations. The reason? It was a ‘door to proclamation’. A pamphlet was even produced and widely distributed by one Assembly detailing the links of the Baha’i faith with the British monarchy and our support for it. When our Assembly pointed out to the NSA that this kind of activity could be construed in many quarters as political, and that, in areas such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (where there is strong anti-monarchical feeling), the faith would be identified with political views of wide unpopularity, the reply made by the secretary was simply that he could not understand the point we were making. Nor could he understand our making a distinction between loyalty to one’s government and active support for the establishment.

It is a tragic situation when, as seems to be happening more and more often, Baha’is show themselves to be proud of the fact that they have gained some form of recognition from the old order. Something subtle is wrong, I think, when, for example, such publicity is given to the fact that Baha’is have been asked to join in an inter-faith service in Westminster Abbey. We now think it a wonderful thing when the very churches which we used to described as defunct and despiritualized patronize us in this way, adn do what we can to ingratiate ourselves with clerics, bishops, and ‘respectable’ religious organizations. It seems curious too that we appear to be increasingly favourable to establishment, right-wing, and conservative religions and government bodies; we have very little do to with groups which advocate social change, such as Amnesty, race harmony bodies, sex discrimination groups, anti-war movements, and so on, and more and more with bodies advocating stability, order, law, and respectable social behaviour. It is not surprising that Pinochet and others show such favour towards the Baha’is – we are the ideal religious fringe group for repressive regimes: the offer of outward radicalism with absolute acceptance of the status quo in return for toleration. In Marcusan [Ed. unclear word] terms, we are an acceptable alternative to genuine radicalism which may threaten to actually change society. And, as you so well point out in your Newsletter and I have shown above, we are politically naive.

Here again, we are faced with a vicious circle. The faith, as it stands, is predominantly middle-class and conservative (in the West, at least): students, radicals, the …[Ed. segment missing]… as presented and the community as met unattractive and irrelevant to their concerns (to the extent that anybody actually tries to teach such socially unacceptable people), and so the only converts are won among middle class quasi-liberals — and the circle repeats itself.

The faith seems to be going through a severe crisis — without being aware of it. I have personally little doubt that, if a trenchant radicalization of the community does not take place within the next decade or sooner, it will stagnate and collapse inwards. Exaggerated news items of mass teaching successes and ‘unprecedented’ campaigns in some areas should not make us lose sight of the fact that, in the longer established communities, there is a growing disillusion, retrogression, routinizatin, and apathy — highlighted by the increasingly frenetic pronouncements that ‘things have never been better’. The administration, particularly, the mobile, distant, and woolly appointed side (which is rapidly acquiring many of the characteristics of a clergy), seems to have lost all touch with the mass of believers. At meetings and conferences in this country, it is increasingly rare to find someone not an NSA member, Board Member, Counsellor, or, recently, Assistant, to speak formally — and most of the best-informed and stimulating people belong to none of these bodies. As you write, ‘…now, more often than not, the body of the believers are expected to only carry out policies, rather than help form them.’

To find a solution to any problems I have outlined above is hardly an easy task. But it is an urgent one — most of all because it is little recognized and even less admitted. Clearly fresh Baha’i scholarship in all fields, with considerably greater freedom of expression than is at present permitted, is a priority, as we discussed at Cambridge. But it is not only scholarship, but any fresh thinking, whether scholarly or not, which is being suppressed by those who are convinced that their version of the Baha’i faith is the one and only true version and anything else is heresy. If greater latitude in such matters is not very soon permitted, I fear that the faith will lose at increasing speed its most intelligent, sensitive, and creative believers — and we will be in the hands of civil servants and clergy. The Baha’is must make the decision … [Ed. illegible] … develop naturally as a universal religion or to prematurely ossify as an establishment ‘church’. New ideas are needed — and new actions. It is rubbish to say that, in view of our size and poverty we cannot do anything to help the sufferings of mankind. Single individuals, poor, humble, and dedicated, have, before this, become major forces for good among mankind. The Baha’i community could become a great force for the betterment of the world if, instead of planting trees and talking about the wonderful society of centuries hence, we were to take positive action on the principles for which we claim to stand, if we were to become known as a people for whom expediency and compromise were anathema, if we were to fight, in however a small and restricted an arena, against injustice, tyranny, oppression, corruption, exploitation, and other social evils — without ever taking sides. Perhaps we would be persecuted in some places, perhaps a few Baha’is would die, perhaps we would be misunderstood by some people — but the faith has always been richer for that. It has been well said that to sit on the fence is to take sides — is it not time to we came off the fence and showed our true commitment to the cause of good and humanity?

With warmest wishes,
[Ed. signature]
Denis MacEoin

[END DOCUMENT]

Related Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.

My Notes:

This newsletter is the two year anniversary of the LA Classes! I just had my third birthday, so this is mighty apropos.

Within this newsletter it is obvious that there was now clear friction between the status quo and new ideas being thrown around. In other notes this was implicit if you read between the lines. But here, it is very evident.

Tony Lee presents an idea that can not be easily shot down: that the process of revelation is a dialogue, rather than a monologue. Although most Baha’is assume that individual believers had no role, except as subservient and passive believers that simply followed the Central Figure of their day, the actual historical evidence is surprising.

And although the writer of this newsletter, as always, pokes fun at the class as being “heretical”… the institutions were by now taking notice of the same thing. But they weren’t laughing.

If this is your first newsletter, you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[Ed. personal address]
“Hermosa Bench, love it or leave it.”
Vol. III No. 11

We celebrated the second anniversary of our study class with a verbal dustup over what special role – if any – individual Baha’is have in shaping the Abha Dispensation, Tony Lee got things off and running by re-stating a favorite theory of his. It is his thesis that the Baha’i Faith as we know it is the result of interaction between the Central Authorities of the Faith (be they the Bab, Baha’u'llah, Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi or the Universal House of Justice) and individual Baha’is. Most Baha’is, however, behave as if the revelation as a monologue spoken from the prophet to the people. While a central figure provides authority and spiritual impetus for the body of the believers, Lee argued that it is an interaction between charismatic figure and the followers that creates the dynamic of growth and change.

He cited the conference at Badasht in which the Babis – on their own initiative – discarded Islam, deciding that the Babi Faith was a new revelation to which they owed their allegiance and that the laws fo Islam (the sharia) were dead. The Bab, the Author of that revelation, was in prison at the time and had no influence over the conference, although He later ratified its actions. The proclamation of the doctrine of the equality of men and women was launched by Tahirih at that same conference, again, on her own initiative and without the sanction of the Prophet. That stand was later affirmed and is a major Baha’i social tenet. A third and more contemporary example is the establishment of the Baha’i House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois. A group of early American Baha’is learned of the construction of the temple in ‘Ishqabad and asked Abdu’l-Baha’s permission to erect one in the United States. Again, the original idea was that of the believers which the Central Authority later endorsed.

Lee said that he believes that this interchange [sic] is not only misunderstood and unappreciated by the modern Baha’i community, but that it has become significantly weakened over the past 20 or 30 years. The community lost the spark of intellectual foment because of a shift to emphasizing the expansion of the Faith. This policy of worldwide expansion has been successful, but the lack of intellectual activity that has resulted from it is catching up with us. As a result, Lee asserted, we now find ourselves lagging behind current concerns and have dropped from leadership (when in the 1920′s and 30′s our advocacy of interracial fellowship, global peace and world government were little short of revolutionary) down to irrelevance. (that is, now, in the 1970′s, our social positions fail to address the needs and problems of mankind.)

This point of view did not win universal acceptance among the members of the class. For example, Lisa Janti, currently the chairman of the Spiritual Assembly of Los Angeles, countered with a different view. She said that the reason the early Babis and Baha’is played such a fundamental role in shaping the Faith was because they had no access to the Writings of the Central Figures. However, as the Writings became more available, the need to ask questions (and help shape policy) dwindled. The task for believers then became one of digesting and understanding the Teachings. She rejected the notion that Baha’i social principles are passe, saying that they have not been implemented by the Baha’is, but that is another matter.

Mrs. Janti said that other movements tend to emphasize the negative when it comes to social principles She cited the example of the women’s movement saying much of its energy is focused on abortion rights, which are a minor issue in the equality of men and women. She also expressed concern about the tone of Lee’s position, saying that when the Baha’is would ask a Central Figure questions of interpretation, they did so in the spirit of loving obedience and sincere reverence. Mrs. Janti expressed the fear that class members were copying the jaded cynicism of non-Baha’i movements which preach only the doctrine of attack, and never offer any healing remedy for the problems plaguing mankind.

Dr. Amin Banani, in whose Santa Monica home we were meeting. also voiced concern with Tony’s thesis. He said that while everyone agrees that there is a need for new thought in the Faith, it would be a mistake to assign responsibility for developing fresh ideas to some self-styled intellectual elite, among the Baha’is. Baha’i thinkers qualify as no special class among the ranks of the believers and are not the custodians of progress in the Faith. He pointed out that intellectual haughtiness is a disease of the educated and warned class members against falling into that trap.

Other class members said that those points did not go to the heart of the argument being advanced. Shahin Carrigan of Santa Monica said a kind of Baha’i bureaucracy has grown up and individual Baha’is are relying more and more on their local Assemblies and, in the process abandoning their individual responsibility to think and innovate. It i true, that we have failed to apply the Baha’i principles, but that is because many Baha’is simply do not know how to think. Beyond that, she said, Baha’is are fearful of taking any initiative because they will be shot down by the institutions of the Faith. Mrs. Carrigan said that there is no satisfactory distinction between individual responsibilities and institutional authority.

David Langness of Santa Barbara offered the opinion that the lack of intellectual activity in the Faith is a direct reflection of the fewness of thinkers within its rank. Baha’is in who are intellectually inclined sometimes become inactive simply because there is little value placed on creativity within the Baha’i Community. Those who want to think for themselves find little place in the community and so are forced out.

Shoghi Effendi was an intellectual, in the finest sense of the term, Langness continued, but there are few Baha’is who have followed him. Perhaps the nub of the issue is that intellectual activity centers on debate and the clash of opinions. This is sometimes just the thing that Baha’is want to shy away from, because they regard it as disunity. Langness said it is difficult for intellectuals to enter the Faith and remain within its ranks. He added that more attention ought to be paid to reaching thinkers and those whose ideas have influenced others.

Mehrdad Amanat of Santa Monica pulled the class back to the subject by saying we cannot support the unspoken assumption among Baha’is that our religion became a static, complete package with the death of Shogbi Effendi in 1957. The truth of the matter is that Baba’is lack meaningful answers to the major issues of this decade: human rights, Marxism, economic probems, etc. Criticism of the Baha’i institutions is not treason. Rather, it is the duty of the individual believer to offer his criticism to the institutions. Holding classes in which the role and performance of the institutions is criticized is in order.

But Mrs. Janti expressed discomfort with that view. She responded that the Assemblies are made up of amateurs doing their best. For the administrative institutions to succeed, it is much more important that the body of the believers offer their loving support, rather then their criticisms. And, she wondered aloud about the real motives and intent of the class.

Amin Banani brought things to a head by challenging the entire notion of shared authority in the Faith. He supported the view that the revelation comes from the Prophet and is not expressed in the form, of co-authorship between the religious figure and the body of believers. He asked Mr. Lee to clarify exactly what he intended by his opening statements to the class.

Lee responded that he was not talking about shared authority or issuing any challenge on that score. Authority has only one source in the Baha’i Faith. But, he claimed that a co-authorship of Baha’i history does exist between the Center of the Faith and the believers, The progress of the Faith and the direction in which it has grown are the direct result of the influence of its followers, as well as its Fournders. Even the Baha’i Writings themselves are inconceivable without the participation of the believers themselves.

Beyond that, the Baha’is should not see themselves in a position of waiting for the Universal House of Justice to tell them what to do. Perhaps, they should tell the House of Justice what to do. It is the prerogative of the Supreme Institution to reject their ideas. But, on the other hand, they may accept and a whole new of Baha’i history may be opened because of the initiative of one believer. The point is that a two-way dynamic exists and, for the Faith to progress input from the believers is essential. Religious revelation is not a one-way street and, Lee said, the Faith is not a body of Writings whose contents need only be analyzed for Baha’is to know what their task is.

David Langness supported the activist stance, especially as it applied to interaction between believer end authority figure. He pointed out that had it not been for Laura Dreyfuss Barney “bugging Abdu’l-Baha to death” with her questions at the dinner table we would not now have the book Some Answered Questions which sets out the basics of how the Baha’i Faith views Christianity, among other topics. In view of that interaction which is the common thread of Baha’i history – it is appalling that Baha’is really believe the entire revelation was handed down, holy and pristine, for the believers to merely read and reflect on.

But, David Young disputed this view, arguing that Baha’is asking for guidance in the form of question does not amount to a “co-authorship” of the revelation. Furthermore, he said, it is not true, that the Baha’is lack answers to current social questions such as socialism and human rights. It may be true that Baha’is can be criticized for their failure to take action in these realms where there is material relating to them in the Writings, but such a failure is another matter.

The debate was never resolved. Ron Carrigan said that there are gaps in the revelation where such fundamental issues as economies are not addressed. While the world desperately needs a new theory of economics there is simply no such theory in the Writings of the Central Figures of the Faith. And, the catch phrase “spiritual solution to the economic problem” is so vague that it is both meaningless and useless.

Tony Lee responded that such a lack of economic theory in the Baha’i Writings is undeniably, but that this should not be regarded as a deficiency in the revelation. It simply means that Baha’i thinkers should be challenged to work out such a theory based on the few economic principles recommended in the Writings. The problem is that Baha’is do not see this as their role. Most Baha’is believe that everything of importance has already been covered in the Writings and so there is no need for any further thought. It is common talk at firesides that Baha’ullah brought a new economic system.

One of the ironic highlights of the evening was that the main presentation scheduled for the class, a ten-minute tape-recorded speech which member of the House of Justice Dr. David Rube gave at the University of Illinois in 1966, was not trotted out until late in the evening. In that speech, among other topics, Dr. Rube out lined what he termed “Baha’i higher culture”. After first defining “lower culture” as those human concerns with basic survival — food, shelter, sex, material possessions — Dr. Ruhe said that what is needed in every society is a “higher culture” – the arts and humanities. The Baha’i Faith bids to convert the whole of human society and so we must be concerned, not only with the basics of human life, but also with the “higher culture” of man. The future society ,ill be acre complex and lore demanding than anything we have known before. As Baha’is, Dr. Ruhe said, we must begin responding to those demands and assuming a leadership role in shaping our own culture. Including, our own higher culture.

Dr. Ruhe said that that Baha’is ought to learn a lesson from the Jewish Community which honors and credits its scholars, placing them in a special category in the community. He said that Baha’i artists must also be encouraged and supported financially. These higher activities are a necessary part of Baha’i community life.

RETROSPECTIVE

Now that we are all of two years old (and the betting was 6 to 5 that we would never make it this far), perhaps we aught to take stock. Class members and guests have presented papers on a wide variety of topics – everything from history to Baha’i theology. The class probably offers the only forum of its kind in Southern California, where Baha’is can discuss candidly and in depth – the issues and problems which face the Baha’i community at large. We now have between 70 and 75 people on our mailing list. Most of our subscribers support ($12 a year — that’s cheap, gang) comes from American Baha’is living in the United States. About a dozen Canadian Baha’is, for one foolish reason or another also subscribe to our newsletter. Several English Baha’is, in what we assume is a masochistic exercise read it as well. We also have subscribers in such unlikely places as the Central African Empire, Iran, Portugal, Chile, India, and even Zambia. Anytime you are in the area (to visit Disneyland, of course, Why else would anyone come to Southern California?) you are welcome to join in our mildly seditious sessions.

[END DOCUMENT]

Related Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.

My Notes:

This newsletter is noteworthy not only because it contains a report about a scholarly conference held in England but also because it was later cited as an example of naughty behavior by the NSA of the United States and figured into their decision to ban further publication and dissemination of the LA Class Newsletters.

The class also discusses the crisis brewing in the cradle of the Faith. This discussion was held in October 1978; you may wish to refer to the time line of events leading up to the Iranian revolution for context.

If this is your first newsletter, you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[Ed. personal address]
Hermosa Beach, California
“Impiety is our only Sacred Cow”

November 1978
Volume III. No. 10

Our October study class meeting featured a report by Tony Lee on the two-day Baha’i Studies Seminar at Cambridge University held from September 30 to October 1. It also took up the topic of the current political unrest in Iran and how that affects the Persian Baha’i community.

Tony reported that the Baha’i Studies seminar was called to survey a variety of scholarly topics. Those participating included Peter Smith1 studying sociology at. the University of Loncaster; Moojan Momen, research assistant to Hasan Balyuzi (now assisting the Hand of the Cause with an upcoming book on Baha’u’llah); Denis MacEoin, pursuing a doctorate in Oriental Studies at Cambridge and working on Babi history; Wendy Momen, who holds a doctorate in International Relations; Loni Bramson, studying the history of religions as the Catholic University of Luvain and doing her dissertation on the Faith; Viva Perdu, doing a doctorate in theology at Oxford and writing a dissertation comparing Baha’i and Christian notions of the Kingdom of God. In all, about 35 people attended the conference. Most were spectators. (An official report, of the seminar can be obtained by sending the equivalent of one British pound to Denis MacEoin, Kings College, Cambridge University, England.)

Most of the discussion at the seminar centered on the justification of Baha’i Studies at this point in Baha’i history, the methodology which the Baha’i scholar should use and the role of the Baha’i scholar in the community. Tony summarized some of the highlights of the session which interested him most.

Several of those attending the seminar agreed that, within the last 30 to 40 years, there has been very little Baha’i scholarship. Most of the commentaries on the Faith which we use now in the West were written during the 1920’s and 1930’s. They focus on the problems of that time: war and peace, international cooperation, race relations, etc. Since that time there have been few new ideas introduced into the Baha’i community.

This is because Shoghi Effendi, beginning in the late 30’s turned the attention of the Baha’i Community toward the urgent need for the Baha’i Faith to become a world religion. Scholarship dwindled under the Guardianship. However, in the 1930’s most outside observers who noticed the Faith at all came to the conclusion that it was a Persia religious movement which had spread in some circles in the West, but had gone about as far as it would go outside of its native land.

Shoghi Effendi directed a series of global campaigns which were able to spread the Faith all over the planet and forever change the character of the Baha’i community. Nonetheless, the activity of expansion and multiplication occupied the Faith and its followers almost exclusively on through the 1960’s and into the 1970’s. And it was argued, that emphasis left the Faith largely unprepared to face the social crises which the world must deal with today. While it is true that the Faith has solutions to the world problems today the major works by the believers which interpret what these solutions might be — such as those of Horace Holley and John Esslemont were written in a different period and in the idiom of a different age. The remedies offered in those books are largely obsolete and irrelevant to current considerations. This leaves the average believer simply unprepared to address contemporary social issues, such as world starvation, population explosion. neo-colonialism, world socialism, ecology arid pollution, women’s liberation, economic exploitation, the alienation of industrial society, dwindling fuel resources. etc.

It was argued at the conference that the American Baha’i Community is in a State of stagnation due to a lack of ideas arid a paucity of discussion which fosters change and growth. Therefore, Baha’i scholarship is an essential priority at this time, if the community is to grow arid develop. Often teaching at the local level has become a formula recitation of the “12 Principles” (most of which are already realized or have been supplanted as front-rank social concerns in most parts of the world). While the conferees seed to agree that a steady stream of ideas and proposals is essential to the development of the Faith, they also argued the lack of fresh impulse is one of the reasons that the teaching work is now so difficult and consolidation such a problem in most parts of the world.

Many of those attending the Cambridge seminar were concerned that new ideas should be presented in a gentle and non-threatening manner. Challenging old ways of thinking or overturning popular myths may well shake the faith of some. There is a need for Baha’i scholars to exchange ideas and devise some way to have them filter through to the community at large. As things stand now, the practices and concerns of the scholar are not those of the mass of the faithful. To most Baha’is, tracking down the historical errors in “The Dawn Breakers” is not only a pointless exercise, but possibly heretical as well. How can the scholar communicate what he is trying to do to the body of the believers?

Also discussed was the issue of censorship and review, Although Shoghi Effendi declared that the review of any materials on the Faith written by Baha’is by the administrative institutions which is now required was a temporary measure, it has been in force now for more than 50 years and shows no signs of withering away. How much, if any censorship ought to be permitted in the Baha’i community? If a scholar spends several years researching some topic in the Faith. who is qualified to review his work? Who can challenge the accuracy of his conclusions besides someone who has spent as much time researching the topic as he has. Doesn’t this place the scholar in the position of having to submit his work to a committee which may be wholly ignorant of the topic upon which he has written. And this committee has the absolute right (with the approval of the National Spiritual Assembly involved) to prevent his work from being published.

The topic of Baha’i methodology, especially in the area of history, raised questions of what assumptions the Baha’i scholar ought to make. Is “methodological agnosticism” (where the scholar essentially becomes a non-Baha’i for purposes of research) essential or ever legitimate? If the teachings of Baha’u'llah are for the illumination of the whole world, surely they can illumine scholarship at well. But how? As scholars how are we to regard the Central Figures of the Faith? What about the question of infallibility? Is it absolute or specific? We know that Shoghi Effendi is not to be regarded as infallible in matters of history. Where does this put Cod Passes By When accounts from Baha’i sources and Covenant-breaker sources differ diametrically and there are no third party accounts (there are dozens of historical incidents in which this is the case) should the Baha’i automatically accept the Baha’i version?

If the Cambridge Seminar wondered about these provocative topics, so did our class members as they discussed the same issues. In class, it was argued that we must establish new standards of scientific investigation. Our concepts of empiric investigation were formed during the Renaissance, when the basic criterion required that the scientist look with a neutral, unbiased eye at how natural phenomena performed. The outgrowth of this training is that now we have a scientific method which is devoid of faith. Perhaps a new form of scientific method must be developed, one that acknowledges the appearance of a Messenger of God Who has proclaimed the interdependency of science and religion. Still, an issue that was raise, but not resolved, is what impact this change might have on scientific investigation.

In our rambling discussion, we examined our own role as a class of interested observers (scholarship, in the strict sense of the word cannot be applied to our class), Over the past couple of years, we have examined a variety of topics, raised some provocative questions, but without any real effect on the Baha’i community at large. It was argued that we should intensify our efforts with the aim of making an impact with ideas on the policies and practices of the Baha’i community. The prevailing attitude iii the American community, at least, is that the Prophet comes and delivers a package (an instruction manual, perhaps) to the world. Then it is the simple task of His followers to just apply what has been revealed (that is, follow instructions). But, this notion leaves no room for thought or creativity on the part of the believers. Their only task is to become good robots. In fact, creativity is to be looked upon with suspicion and innovation avoided as possible heresy. But this view supposes a static society with no social change, and this is just not the history of man. Class members agreed that the Faith works best as an interchange between the individual and the institution. New ideas and new approaches are needed or religious notions become antiquated and a kind of spiritual arteriosclerosis sets in. Very often in the recent history of the Faith policy has come about as a result of just such an interchange. But that spirit seems to have evaporated, and now, more often than not, the body of the believers are expected to only carry out policies, rather than help form them.

Ironically, as the Faith became more institutionalized, the result of Shoghi Effendis work, individual Baha’is became less innovative and more dependent on the administrative institutions to do their thinking for them. This they are incapable of doing of course, because they were never intended to act as a substitute for individual thought.

As a result; in recent years, the Faith has become neglectful of the pressing social issues of our day. What (for example) are our stands on the issue of illegal aliens entering the United States?

What about busing to achieve school integration? What is the Baha’i response to the Marxist view of capitalist exploitation? (See also above.)

Some class members even objected that the same Baha’i principles which may have been clear 50 years ago are so no longer. The principles raise all sorts of questions. What is the equality of men and women? What does that mean for changing sexual roles? How do we apply this principle to real situations? How are men and women equal? it was pointed out that, looking at the Baha’i communities around the world, this principle seems to mean little in practice. The Baha’is have not distinguished themselves as models of sexual equality, but have followed the customs of their respective cultures. If we are supposed to be in the vanguard of social change why have we failed? For lack of fresh and new ideas to spur us on?

In our discussion, it was suggested that a series of weekend seminars on different topics involving Baha’is who are professionals or scholars in various fields ought to be formed to offer advice and suggestions to the National Assembly. But,others contended that it is just not that simple. One does not sit dawn on a weekend and bash out a raft of bright, new ideas. Such ideas must rise naturally from debate and discussion, within the Baha’i Community as a whole.

For such developments to take place, we must first agree that new ideas are necessary at all and commit ourselves, as a community, to some degree of intellectual life. Right now, the entire National thrust is towards spreading the Faith and multiplying its institution and nevermind new ideas. The achievement of statistical goals has gotten to the point that it is pointless and uninspiring. After a while no one cares if we have 1,400 or 1,800 local Spiritual Assemblies or how many languages Baha’i literature is translated into. The excessive concentrattons on such “shopping list” goals has left the Baha’i community without any sense of culture or unique identification.

And what happens if our zeal for expansion pays off big? Suppose there is a massive influx of new believers’? Is the Baha’i community prepared to handle such an influx. Do we have the flexibility and adaptability to receive large numbers of people into the Faith and socialize them quickly — bringing them into the mainstream of Baha’i life and allowing them to change the course of that mainstream? Experience shows that we do not. Even the recent influx of deepened Persian believers into the United States has caused problems which we are not prepared to handle because we have never thought about them. How does a Baha’i community overcome a language barrier? Some communities in the Los Angeles area have chosen to have translations at the Feasts, while others have steadfastly refused to have them (except, perhaps, for the Treasurer’s Report). And what if Armenians and Chinese and Mexicans enter the Faith in large numbers all at once? Do we then translate into four languages? Do we ignore then and go on only in English?

Questions like these came a lot easier than answers. While we could ask how we should socialize ethnic minorities in the Baha’i community, we could not agree on the best methods, or how to safeguard the rights of Baha’i minorities. The unhappy conclusion we arrived at is that the administrative institutions have not identified problem areas. And barring some major re-thinking on the highest levels, we will continue with what one class member termed the ‘body count’ theory of expansion which ignores the question of quality in the quest for quantity.

After a break our discussion shifted to the political situation in Iran, Attending our class session were a number of Iranian Baha’is, including one man who had recently returned from that crisis-torn country. He reported that the recent wave of anti-government demonstrations, strikes and riots has left Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi in a very bad situation. The Baha’is of Iran have not gone untouched by this widespread social upheaval. There have been hundreds of incidents of beatings, torture and other persecutions outside of Tihran, Our class was told of a Baha’i Center in Gurgun in the province of Mazindaran [Ed. alt spelling: Mazandaran] that was burned to the ground by a mob. Baha’is have been purged from all high government positions. Gen. Khademi, the head of Iran Air and a Baha’i, was fired from his job and them murdered by a group of Muslim youth.

Behind these incidents lies the fact that opposition to the Shah is spearheaded by religiously super-orthodox mullas who have deep antipathy for the Baha’i Faith. Since the pulpits of the mosques have remained for the last many years the only avenues of dissent which have not been crushed by the government of Iran, the frustrated masses of a nation have rallied behind these reactionary leaders. This places the Baha’is is a very dangerous position — especially if the Shah should fall.

Beyond this, there is an even more serious problem. Baha’is in Iran are popularly regarded as firm supporters of the Shah’s regime. In the eyes of the leftist revolutionaries, the Baha’i community is committed to the Pahlavi dynasty and, therefore is a common enemy. This is largely due to the fact that some prominent Baha’is have made fortunes by placing themselves in partnership with the royal family and participating in their corrupt dealings) and partially due to a general misunderstanding of the Baha’i Teachings on obedience to government. However, the Baha’i Community has not taken steps to make its neutrality in the current crisis clear.

Beyond this, the Persian Baha’is themselves have cone to confuse loyalty to government with support for the Shah. It was reported, for example, that it is a well-known fact that there are Baha’is who work for SAVAK, the Shah’s brutal secret police, notorious for systematic torture, of political prisoners. Rumors are rife in Iran that Amir Abbas Hoveida, the now-jailed ex-prime minister, is a secret Baha’i. (His father was a Covenant-breaker.) For years the Baha’i community did nothing to discourage these rumors. It was evidently felt that such misinformation would provide a measure of protection for the Baha’i community, With the fail of that minister and the wholesale expulsion of Baha’is from government posts, the community is suffering a double blow — partly of its own making.

The bottom line here appears to be that the Baha’i community of Iran is isolated and without allies in Persian society. Even the intellectual classes, who might have opposed the persecution of Baha’is on humanitarian grounds, have written off the Baha’is as servants of the Shah and, therefore, traitors to the nation. As for the Shah himself, his continued reign seems to be the only hope the Baha’is have of avoiding full-scale persecution. But, several class members agreed that the Shah would throw the Iranian Baha’i Community to the mobs without hesitation if he thought that it might shore up his tottering rule.

The Persian Baha’i Community may not be the only one to suffer from having become too identified with a repressive regime. One member of our class had received a letter from some American pioneers in South America. They reported that some native believers in their part of the world had been distressed by a photograph published in a recent issue of Baha’i News (June 1978, p; 13). That picture showed a group of Baha’is (including members of the Continental Board of Counsellors and the Chilean National Spiritual Assembly) posing with Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, the dictator of Chile. Gn. Pinochet, it is widely acknowledged, runs one of the most brutally regimes in Latin America. Further, in the picture in the Baha’i News, television cameras were clearly recording the event for the Chilean masses. By posing for pictures with the General, some class members argued, the Baha’is were allowing themselves to be used as pawns in a political game of power. They were giving a de-facto seal of approval to Pinochet’s government – a fact that may be remembered some day, if and when his regime is overthrown. And sometimes military regimes do not last long in South America.

Another class member related a story about the political naiveté of the Baha’is. In Belgium at one time the Baha’i community was asked to send some Persian believers to greet the Empress of Iran as she arrived in the airport in Brussels. Every Persian Baha’i in Brussels, save one, turned out to greet the Empress with smiling faces. The news media duly recorded the event. It turns out that no other Persians (non-Baha’is) in Belgium were told that the Empress was to arrive, because the government feared negative demonstrations which would cause some bad publicity, it seems that the Baha’is could he counted on to provide just the political support that the Persian government wanted. And the Baha’is went along, naively thinking that they were being honored by the government and, apparently without the slightest idea that their actions had any political implications.

NEXT CLASS

Actually, the next class has already been held. You will get the notes from that one shortly. But, the class after that will he held on December 17th (a Sunday) at 3:00 P.M. at the home of Anthony A. Lee (also known as Tony) [Ed. personal address and phone number follows] It is not clear just what the topic of the class will, be, bt uTony has been urged to give a lecture on African Traditional Religions and their relationship to the Baha’i Faith. And, if no one comes forward with some other presentation, then that’s what it will be. Everyone is requested to bring a needle or two to stick into some object which Tony is preparing. Come prepared!

[END DOCUMENT]

Related Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.

My Notes:

This newsletter contains a summary of the presentation of Dr. Daniel Jordan on ANISA – a framework for education. Unfortunately, Dr. Jordan’s life was cut short by murder approximately four years from this LA class presentation; which left ANISA without a champion.

ANISA sounds very promising and it is most tragic that its founders’ life was so untimely cut. Who knows what it may have flowered into had it been given a chance? Searching on the internet, there are a few people (no doubt associates and partners of Dr. Jordan) who are continuing to work along similar lines. If you wish to learn more about Dr. Daniel C. Jordan, here is a biography written 10 years after his death.

It also bears highlighting that Dr. Jordan was inspired by Baha’i principles and values but that the framework that he developed was based not truly based on them. This is a limiting factor that I’ve seen in Baha’is of all fields – they automatically assume that the Baha’i Faith contains the answer for their field… be it agriculture, biology, commerce, etc…

The Faith is beautiful but it isn’t everything. Baha’i specialists may start with the Writings but to corral oneself inside them and insist that nothing else outside is of value is devastating. Sadly I’ve seen many Baha’is take this approach and their projects suffer for it. The Baha’i Faith can’t be wrangled and coerced to give answers to everything under the sun. Do you really think that God would make things as simple as that?

Or provide some sort of infallible oracle to which one can put all questions for the final answer?

Finally Dr. Jordan’s comment on Baha’i pioneers is interesting. His prediction hasn’t become reality but it is true that people are skeptical if all you offer is to preach. They’ve had enough of that. Especially in poverty stricken countries. What they need are real answers and solutions which are borne out of the seed of Faith that pioneers take with them.

If this is your first newsletter, you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[Ed. personal address]
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
October, 1978
Volume III, No. 9

Most of us went to school under an educational system that functioned as a kind of crude computer theory. Students, like machines, it was believed, could be programmed with knowledge by stuffing their heads full of facts — the multiplication tables, important dates in history, the parts of speech, etc. This approach to leaning is based on the notion that students are empty vessels, in school to be filled with a universe of knowledge. It has always found greater acceptance among educators than educatees.

But suppose that someone developed a theory of education that was less concerned with instilling some state-approved curriculum into the heads of pupils; but was more attuned to the development of the students’ inherent potential? In fact, such an event has already taken place and, at the September meeting of our study class, some 50 people crowded into the home of Sid and Karan Morrison to hear about it.

The speaker was Dr. Daniel Jordan, chair of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States, discussing ANISA, a unique educational program he has developed over the last 18 years. In a lecture lasting more than two hours and representing “only the tip of the iceberg,” as Jordan termed it, he outlined what the program is and how it works. Here is a summary of his talk:

The ANISA project recently has moved to the West Coast and is now centered in Escondido, California, a city about 100 miles south of Los Angeles. ANISA was refined at the University of Massachusetts but, after a ten-year association with that institution, the program had to decamp. Its departure was occasioned partly because of a $700 million state budget deficit which threatened to end the project’s funding and partly because of a restructuring of the university’s academic hierarchy which forecast a limited future for the experimental model.

Jordan, the founder and program head, decided to take ANISA out of the public sector, and put it under the sponsorship of a private university — an educational institution he founded. The decision to end ANISA’s association with recognized educational establishments was not an easy one to make. When it became apparent that the program at U. Mass. faced diminishing odds, some 27 colleges and universities were sounded out about giving it a home. There was some interest, but as Jordan recalled, “Their first questions were not about the quality of the ideas but were on political issues and money.”

That was not the only problem. In a couple of cases, university officials showed interest in the ANISA program and called back to
U. Mass. for references. They were told that ANISA was a Baha’i front organization for religious proselytizing. Interest waned after such misinformation was given them, despite ANISA denials.

There is considerable confusion, especially in the minds of Baha’is, about the nature of the ANISA program. Although ANISA draws some of its inspiration from the Baha’i Writings (and less than many Baha’is believe), it is not a “Baha’i educational system”. However, Anisa is an Arabic term meaning “the tree of life” and, in a Baha’i context, has been identified by Abdu’l-Baha as symbolizing the Baha’i Covenant. In the early days of the program, the word ANISA was used as an acronym for “American National Institute for Social Advancement”. This usage seems to have been discarded now.) In the Baha’i Writings, a great emphasis is place on education, the purpose of which is to develop latent human potentials, according to Baha’u'llah. However, Baha’u'llah never specified what would constitute a proper education and Shoghi Effendi wrote that future scholars would have to figure out what such an education would entail.

When ANISA was moved to the West Coast, Jordan took over a financially ailing institution called California American University and started a Master of Science program in education at the new school. It is here that the experiment resumes.

ANISA came into being during the early 1960’ s when Jordan began wondering why the educational system all but ignored the exploration of how humans develop and learn. While new discoveries generally take about three years to penetrate the scientific community, in education, 50 years can pass before any innovative thinking makes its influence felt in the classroom. Learning in America and elsewhere has concentrated on the development of curriculum, excluding much consideration about the person to be educated. There is no fundamental statement about the nature of man [and] the direction of his development through education.

ANISA is one approach to such a system, and one that attempts to create an educational system based on spiritual, and scientific values. The initial work for creating such a system began with a survey of the Baha’ i Writings regarding learning, but that was not satisfactory, for there still was not enough there on which to base an educational system. The groundwork made progress when a survey of the writings of Alfred North Whitehead, and English philosopher, turned up his observation that the success of any unified system requires a basic principle around which everything else is organized. That discovery led ANISA researchers to ask themselves what the first principle of education is. Queries to professors of education did not help much, for none of them knew what such a first principle might be and a few dismissed the importance of even having such a basic statement.

The search for a first principle led to a survey of the educational literature of the twentieth century and a tabulation of statements about the nature of man. But the search kept returning to Whitehead’s writings and his musings on the nature of the Universe. Whitehead observed that when one sees the universe, what one sees is change. Change is process and it presupposes potentiality. Translating potential into actuality is creativity, the philosopher wrote. Based on this notion, the ANISA founders decided that the purpose of their system would be to translate a child’s potential into actuality. That became the organizing principle.

Ironically, for a system that is designed to develop a child’s potential, ANISA has never commanded enough money to run its own school. It has, for the most part, concentrated on training teachers. As Jordan explained it, what a teacher believes about a child influence how the teacher will instruct and the child will learn. “If you think that kids are mean little monsters, then you will relate to them in that way and on that basis, and help create a self-fulfilling prophecy Therefore, ANISA programs have concentrated on teaching teachers not reduce the ability of students to absorb education by patronizing or humiliating the children.

Over the eighteen years of its existence. ANISA has refined a philosophical statement that is expressed through its theory of development. Since development is the realization of inner potential, ANISA programs, in part, focus on problems of development. It was discovered, for example, that development was brought about through interaction with the environment. Therefore, from the ANISA point of view, teaching means arranging the environment so as to foster the development of the child’s potential. Two factors were revealed to come into play here: biological and psychological.

After examining the matter, ANISA researchers came to the conclusion that the basis of biological development is nutrition. As Jordan put it “A significant percentage of the world’s children are mentally deficient — simply because of inadequate diet.” ANISA spent $1.5 million in grant funds on this aspect of education alone, field testing the nutrition theory over a five-year period and proving a link between proper diet and the ability to pay attention to what the teacher is saying. “Poor nutrition leads to limited attention and limited learning,” Jordan said, adding, “We find a large number of kids with learning deficiencies that are nutritionally related. Under the ANISA system, even teachers have to understand the importance of proper diet for themselves. “Being with kids is stressful, in case you haven’ t noticed,” Jordan quipped.

Tuning to the psychological aspects of development potential, the ANISA model divides these into five categories: psychomotor, perceptual, cognitive. affective and volition.

PSYCHOMOTOR development was defined as the capacity to differentiate between body muscles and control them. The point here is that gaining psychomotor control of one’s body increases one’s potential and leads to success in other learning areas. A child who is not confident about using his body will shy away from new learning environments out of fear and will limit his own growth.

PERCEPTION relates to the ability to take in visual information and make sense out of it. This ability varies from child to child and must be developed for the student to gain better advantage of the learning process.

COGNITIVE development has to do with thinking, which everyone agrees is important, but no one can define with precision. ANISA has a cognitive competence curriculum that focuses on teaching a child how to think. Most schools concentrate on teaching children what to think but not necessarily how to think or use critical judgment.

AFFECTIVE deals with learning and organizing emotion, one of the most powerful and least understood influences on human behavior. Jordan noted that people are seldom in charge of their emotions, and it is feeling, more than abstract thinking, that influence human behavior. Under the ANISA model, emotions are placed in two categories: those which relate to hope and enhance development and those that have their basis in fear and impair development.

VOLITION (Will): relates how to pay attention, a subject that is never taught in schools. Young students are required to hold their minds on a particular subject, but never taught how to do so. Volition training centers on the ability to set goals and create steps to accomplish those goals.

During the question period, Jordan was asked whether ANISA had ever attempted to prove its theories through field experience. He responded that ANISA had been field tested, for five years, but that, there had never been enough money to found an ANISA school to verify the system’s fundamental ideas. One overall test was conducted in Springfield Mass. school system where an ANISA program was temporarily installed. Jordan said that data collected found reading scores were significantly higher for the ANISA-trained students than a non-ANISA control group. He also appeared to reject the notion of strict scientific proof, at least in part. The rigid and narrow criteria demanded for accurate field testing have only limited meaning in proving our ANISA, he said, because such variables as personal belief simply defy measurement. Even the ANISA modal rests on the recognition that a child has some control over his own development. There is no way one can predict with 100% accuracy what humans will do; they are just too complex to be measured with reliable accuracy.

Along the way, Dr. Jordan mode one interesting digression in which he touched on the future of Baha’ i pioneering. The influence of the Faith is not spreading through its assimilation in the American population. He noted, for example, that the birthrate in the United States is about 10,000 babies born every day “and our enrollment isn’t even close to that.” But, bypassing American society, the Baha’i Faith could make significant inroads in the world’s social agencies, a more important target group. This could come to pass by training Baha’is in any of a variety of occupational skills, such as agronomy, land reclamation, and the like. These are skills essential to developing nations. As the world’s political situation hardens, it is less and less likely that Baha’is will gain admission to Third World countries if their approach is purely as religious missionaries. But, if they can offer the technical skills that match their religious dedication, they can have a potent influence on the course of events in such nations.

Dr. Jordan was asked about the likelihood of having the ANISA model adopted by some major school district. He said that he hoped that would happen, but that the ANISA program would not compromise its principles for the sake of being so adopted. He related his presentation of ANISA to the chiefs of the Navaho Reservation. Some of the traditional old men asked if a child, having gone through the ANISA system would still participate in rain dances with his tribe. Jordan replied carefully that the ANISA child might dance for reasons of social solidarity, but would not believe that the dance would bring rain. The chiefs were not happy with his answer.

One class member remarked that if ANISA intends to socialize children into a full, new cosmology, it is unlikely that it will find acceptance by any society, since they will quite naturally want to protect, their own cultural values.

POSTSCRIPT DEPARTMENT…

Betty Conow of Hacienda Heights sent us a letter to clear up some points Which she feels were incorrectly summarized in the previous newsletter and not presented in the way she would have done. Regarding the newsletter report on Wittgenstein’s paradox, she wrote that the view presented in the notes was not what she presented in the class: “Your view is from his ‘Tractatus’ a philosophical stand he completely reversed later.” {Actually, the newsletter summary of “Wittgenstein’s paradox” was culled from notes taken when a college philosophy instructor was contacted for an explanation of the term.} To resume from her letter: “His paradox is quite of a different order. In his first view, he distinguished between mind and matter (objects in the world) and said language merely labels object, etc., in the manner of the logical positivists. This view still admits to the reality of both subjective and objective principles. Later, in “Philosophical Investigations” and his lectures, he essentially denies that mind and matter exist at all, except as words we invent to give order to things. He says that language creates reality God, Mind, etc. are all part of our language games. If enough people agree on what a word means and agree as to how the word should be used, then order is created. That is the Wittgenstein dilemma — all philosophy, religion, mysticism, then are simply games we play within a context we all agree to abide by
the rules. I am not an expert on Wittgenstein; I am only interested in creating a framework of intelligibility that destroys his paradox. His own argument is of course, based upon just another language game itself.”

Continuing she wrote, “I’m not say that ‘God exists within the cosmos as a Creative Force’ to imply that God apportioned a part of Himself as a Force with discernible properties. What I talked about was the important distinction between creation as emanation rather than as manifestation and is the crucial point of argument between Baha’i and those religions which are pantheistic. I remember speaking to that point extensively.

“I never did explain the smaller separate chart that appeared on the handout. It should have been framed or blocked to show that it was not a part of the larger chart. However, it portrays as a symbol what the other chart portrays in words. ‘Reality of realities’ signifies all that is fundamental or all that which underlies all reality. Sometimes Abdu’l-baha uses this phrase to mean this and sometimes He uses it to mean God. There is no cut and dried definition for it — if there were any further meditation upon this idea would effectively be cut off.

“The smaller chart shows Reality as One, portrayed by a Sphere. In the material world of relativities we all look at Reality and see it, not as One but as separate ‘points,’ dissimilar aspects of one thing. The popular Sufi fable of the blind men feeling the elephant, all touching different parts of it, and so all supposing only ‘his’ sensory experience is correctly describing the elephant, and getting into endless arguments about it. That is what the smaller chart was supposed to convey, although no one even asked me what it meant…

“It is right that I didn’t want to use the intellectual tools that most of us apply to solve all problems. To do so means we have not escaped Wittgenstein’s paradox — that we will only end up talking about definitions of words and not best to use them. It was the very problem I set out to answer a different way, using different tools…”

NEXT CLASS:

The next class will be held on October 29th on a Sunday afternoon at 3:00 P.M. at the home Mehrdad Amanat. His address is [Ed. personal address follows]. At this class Tony Lee will present his resent trip to England where he attended a Seminar on Baha’i Studies held at Cambridge University. He will speak on some of the issues that were raised at that seminar and some of the controversies which were left unresolved. You all be there, y’heah!

[END DOCUMENT]

Related Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.

My Notes:

I found this newsletter a bit dry and boring. But maybe that’s just me. Hope you enjoy it more than I did.

If this is your first newsletter, you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[Ed. personal address]
“Land of the Slightly Fat”

Vol. III, No.8
August, 1970

“Hierarchies, Analogies, and Degrees of Reality: A Model,” represents an ambitious effort by Betty Conow of Hacienda Heights (a town east of Los Angeles) to set out a Baha’i view of Reality. Her cosmology, based on the Baha’i Writings, presents an approach to explaining existence as an ordered system, describing what is and how it works.

Conow made her presentation to our study class on August 27, as we met in the lavishly appointed environs of Tony Lee’s apartment, renowned for its sumptuous delights including newly installed hot arid cold, running wenches. Her paper was offered to our class, partly in reaction to an earlier class discussion of John S. Hatcher’s essay “The Metaphorical Nature of Physical Reality,” In that paper, originally presented to the Canadian Association for Studies on the Baha’i Faith, Hatcher outlined the reasons that mankind, which is fundamentally spiritual, should have a material plane of existence. The Conow reaction to some of Hatcher’s concepts amounted to an elaborate survey of Reality, as viewed through the vehicle of religion. She asserted that the fundamental purpose of religion is to reveal truth to humanity which it does by showing mankind how to understand Reality.

Here, is a summary of her presentation: (The attached charts and short statement were passed out during the course of the class.)

Once we know the reality of things, we can understand what truth is. Truth is those statements made about the condition of reality. And, Reality is all that exists potentially, presently or in the past. There are two ways of considering reality. One is man’s way, that is, from within the system of the universe as part of it. The other lies outside the system, and it is God’s way. Human knowledge uses its own criteria, learned through intellectual discovery, to judge reality. Religion, however, establishes a different standard.

This presents a formidable problem, especially in contemporary philosophy. For instance, two twentieth-century thinkers, Kurt Godel, a German scientist, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, an Austrian philosopher, both argued that the language we use to discuss Reality itself limits our inquiry.

Wittgenstein, for example, wrote that when men wish to discuss a concept, say, a chair, they do so not by considering the chair, but through the use of language to describe the object. The use of language involves symbolic representations. And these representations themselves limit the field of inquiry. Wittgenstein argued, therefore, that it is not possible for man to look outside the system in which he lives because his language — the tools of his exploration — limit him in finite terms.

Conow challenged that assertion, countering that one of the roles of the Manifestation of God is to present an “outside view of reality, one that is not constrained by human limitations, riot the limited proofs the mind of man can muster. Her thesis has it that religion, even from ancient times, has presented Reality as existing in various degrees or, as she called them, hierarchies, which stem from one Source which we call God.

Her theme was not an easy one to follow. Consider this passage from the précis she presented to the class: “The created universe of existence, being composed of matter, reflects Reality on different levels, depending upon which material level each created thing occupies in the cosmic hierarchic order. Each level or hierarchy can reflect only certain aspects of Reality dictated by the laws of that particular hierarchy. We, from the vantage point of our own limited conditions, occupy a unique hierarchy which is simultaneously both the lowest and the highest of all Hierarchies. At our level, Reality is the most differentiated, thereby presenting us with an enigma which speaks both of Oneness and its Appearances.

“Science and philosophy interpret these multiplicities as the standard of Truth whereby all truth and knowledge can be known. The material, visible world encloses us in logic based on probabilities and relativities. inside the system, we define it only by the criteria the system itself provides.

Conow’s presentation continued with a section on analogies and. hierarchies. Reality exists within a setting Like a series of Chinese puzzle boxes, each level lodged within a larger level. This order of things resembles the set Theory of science which holds that everything that exists operates in obedience to the rules of a system. For instance, an atom functions within a system which itself is part of a larger system o the molecule, and so on up the line.

Although mankind is part of this system, human knowledge of it can transcend the limits of the levels through the Manifestation. The Prophet, with Divine Knowledge, understands and explains the entire system, helping man become informed of the workings of the material universe. Manifestations explain the Divine workings by using analogy and symbolism in their language. The purpose of such indirect language is to open up humanity’s inner consciousness. Language is not used so much to communicate ideas as it is wielded to achieve a spiritual reflect on the reader.

The model of Reality presented in the Baha’i Faith amounts to a recasting of an older religious model, connecting the finite, material world to the infinite. In an attempt to demonstrate this link, Conow passed out a chart (see diagram) She defined “cosmos” as everything, that exists, either in potential or in reality. (This definition struck one member of the class as being disturbingly close to the definition of Reality.) Within the cosmos is the material universe. God, she said, exists within the cosmos as a Creative Force, a Fashioner of all that is, and outside of it as an unknowable Essence. God than has a “Hidden Aspect”, which we can be told of but do not know of, and a “Manifest Aspect”, the evidences of which exist as the created, material universe.

Our discussion of Mrs. Conow’s presentation proved to be somewhat of a frustrating experience, for her as well as for the class members. For example, on her chart, Conow placed “The Reality of Realities” outside the cosmos. But she had, in response to a question, defined the cosmos as everything, all potential and all that exists. A similar definition had been given to “Reality.” So then, it was asked, how could there be a separate “Reality of Realities” outside of what she already defined as Reality? And what would such a thing be, anyhow? Conow said that the term “Reality of Realities” was used by Abdu’l-Baha, but failed to explain its place in the scheme of things or why she chose to include it as part of her chart.

A similar collapse in communication occurred over the concept of what she called “The Inner Path of Mysticism,” Linking certain enlightened men to God. (See chart.) Essentially, this mystic path is one taken by religious devotees and mystics in an effort to attain unity with God. It is an important concept in Sufi lsam. Baha’u’llah’s work, The Seven Valleys, which traces the journey of the soul back to its Creator, uses the Sufi model of seven stages. Mystics of all stripes, Sufis, Buddhists and the rest, all have claimed to have taken this path (using whatever means their religion prescribed) to attain oneness with God. Baha’is do not believe that such union with divinity is possible. As such it is not possibe to transcend finite limitations to attain a meeting with the infinite.

Still, such a path exists on Conow’s chart and it appears that it leads directly to God. If such is the case, she was asked, why bother with all the rest. What is the use or the Manifestations? Conow replied that, though mystics believe that they have encompassed the whole cosmos within themselves, they have only traveled the path, which is just a small part of the cosmos. So, what is “the path”? And, if it lends directly to God, why bother with anything else?

Class members received no satisfactory answer to this question, partly because Conow said that she did not wish to become trapped in Wittgenstein’s paradox — being hampered by the limits of language used in an argument. In essence, it appeared that she was unwilling to get into an intellectual analysis of her elaborate system. In particular she felt that a precise definition of terms was inappropriate. That, she implied, would eliminate any possibility of understanding what lies outside the material system because the meanings of words torpedo such an exercise.

When her refusal to talk in specifics became clear, discussion was impossible. The Conow thesis was presented on what amounted to a “take it or leave it” basis. At least some of the class members chose the latter course.

ABOUT TRANSITIONS

Our valued class members, Jon and Chris Hendershot have left the Los Angeles area and are pioneering in Venezuela. We wish then well and miss them, especially Chris, who patiently typed up and proofread these newsletters. She denies that an overwhelming desire to escape the tedium of such activities played a major role in the decision to go pioneering.

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

Tony Lee, our class leader, has forsaken his life of posh lassitude to become a partner in the newly created publishing firm of “Kalimat Press” based in Los Anqeles. Actually, the company is a partnership between Tony and one other Baha’i. The object of the company is to produce Baha’i-related materials. Tony and his partner feel that an alternative to the Baha’i Publishing Trust in Wilmette is needed in the United States (similar to George Ronald in England).

Right now the company is working on Baha’i children’s materials. But if there are any good manuscripts floating around out there in need of a Baha’i publisher, their starry-eyed authors might write to Kalimat Press, [Ed. business address follows]. (Remember: It never hurts budding authors to be obsequious.)

YES THERE WILL BE A NEXT CLASS:

Dr. Daniel Jordan, member and chairman at the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States, recently moved to California with his family. His Anisa program, an approach to education based on Baha’i principles, has moved with him. At our next class Dr. Jordan will speak about Anisa and the Baha’i view of childhood education.

The class will be held. on Saturday evening, September 23rd at 8 P.M. at the home of Sidney and Karan Morrison. The address is: [Ed. personal address and telephone follows]

See you all there !

Click to make bigger:

Click to make bigger:

This presentation covers two ways of looking at Reality–from inside our system, or man’s way and from outside the system, God’s Way, or Revealed Religion. The mainstream of Revealed Religion and the ancient religious traditions have all presented Reality as existing in degrees, gradients, or hierarchies, emanating from the Undifferentiated Whole as One Reality. The created universe or existence being composed of matter, reflects Reality on different levels, depending upon which material level each created thing occupies in the cosmic hierarchic order. Each level or hierarchy can reflect only certain aspects of Reality dictated by the laws of that particular hierarchy. We, from the vantage point of our own limited conditions occupy a unique hierarchy which is simultaneously both the lowest and the highest of all hierarchies. At our level, Reality is the most differentiated thereby presenting us with an enigma which speaks both of Oneness and Appearances, Science and philosophy interpret these multiplicities as the standard of Truth whereby all truth and knowledge can be known. The material, visible world encloses us In logic based on probabilities and relativities. Inside the system, we define it only by the criteria the system itself provides.

If the Holy Teachers did not exist, there would be no way to make any statements about anything outside our system. All knowledge of the non-visible or the Divine Spiritual World comes from these Holy Beings. They alone experienced, lived in, and shared with humanity the living Reality behind all realities. With knowledge from that World They were able to establish the relationships and correspondences that exist between the Spiritual World and the created universe of phenomena, They explained the motions, the energies, and the forces which manifest themselves eternally as Universal Laws in both worlds. Through Their religions they balance our laws as social beings so that the two-worlds may be in harmony and connected,

8/22/78
Betty Conow

[END DOCUMENT]

Related Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.

My Notes:
This LA Class newsletter is interesting because it contains the research of Ms. Loni Bramson-Lerche. A quick search on the internet found this paper she wrote in “Studies in Babi and Baha’i History”, titled: Some Aspects of the Development of the Baha’i Administrative Order in America.

She presents her preliminary research resultson Horace Holley, NSA secretary and in his era, the most prominent member of the American Baha’i community. I had already read from other Baha’i theologians that Holley played a pivotal role, as secretary of the NSA, in forming the community and making decisions. The impression given was that he had an autocratic streak. But what Ms. Bramson reveals is even beyond this.

The newsletter also contains information about an upcoming Baha’i Studies seminar to be held in Cambridge, UK.

If this is your first newsletter, you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[private home address]
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
August 3, 1978

Newsletter
Vol. III, No. 7

Dear Friends,

Well, much to everyone’s surprise yet another issue of the class newsletter is being sent out. The study group is still on shaky ground, however, especially where finances are concerned. This mailing will use up our last few dollars. Our mailing list has grown quite large and of course, subscribers outside of the United States have not (so far) been asked to pay. Since we do not know how many issues of this newsletter will see the light, we are reluctant to ask for more subscriptions. But, if any of you out there (especially the overseas folks) would like to make a voluntary donation to our worthy cause, please send same to the above address made out to Anthony Lee. Otherwise, we are broke.

Baha’i Studies Seminar, Cambridge — Sept. 30 – Oct. 1

The last page of this newsletter reproduces information on the Seminar on Baha’i Studies organized by some English Baha’is doing academic work on the Baha’i Faith which will be held later this year. You will note that you may obtain a copy of the seminar report (notes on the proceedings) for just 50p (about $1). We hope that many of our readers will take advantage of this opportunity and that some of you will even be inspired to attend in person. Remember, air fares are cheap nowadays!

LONI BRAMSON’S PRESENTATION

At our last class we had the pleasure of having Loni Bramson give a presentation on her work on her doctoral dissertation and her research is the National Baha’i Archives in Wilmette. Ms. Bramson has been a pioneer to Belgium for the last four years. She is currently studying at the Catholic Univerity of Louvain, majoring in contemporary history. Her dissertation will be on the history of the Baha’i Faith. She is focusing on the early years of the Guardianship, from about 1921 to 1937. It will be concerned with the transformation which Shoghi Effendi wrought in the Baha’i community during those years and the opposition which he faced within that community. Before coming to Los Angeles, Ms. Bramson spent two weeks during research in Wilmette.

Ms. Bramson explained to the class that it seems that within the last two or three years Baha’i Studies in Europe has really begun to take off. She named several Baha’is and one or two non-Baha’is who are doing academic work on the Baha’i Faith in England, France, Austria and elsewhere. She estimated that there may be ten scholars now doing graduates work on some area of Baha’i Studies. She pointed to the two seminars which have been held at the University of Lancaster (under the direction of Peter Smith) and the one whcih will soon be held at Cambridge. The hope is that these seminars, sponsored by academic institutions will help to give Baha’i Studies a “stamp of academic approval.”

Ms. Bramson also noted that there has been a revival of interest in the Babi Faith generally in academic circles. Recent books written by non-Baha’is have dealt with this subject extensively. Our speaker expressed the hope that these developments would one day lead to the teaching of courses on the Babi and Baha’i Faiths at major universities around the world.

Anthony Lee suggested that there may not be a real upsurge of Baha’i Studies in Europe, but rather an upsurge in communication between scholars doing this kind of work. He guessed that there must be more Baha’is doing academic research on aspects of the Faith in the United States than there are in Europe, but that the American scholars are lamentably out of touch with one another.

Dr. Amin Banani asked for a definition for a definition of “Baha’i Studies.” Loni responded that she felt that anyone doing graduate or post-graduate research at a university on some aspect of the Baha’i Faith was involved in Baha’i Studies. This is a loose term which applies to a wide area.

At this point, Dr. Banani asked an interesting and pointed question. How do the Baha’is who are presently studying the Faith on an academic level in Europe see themselves, especially in relation to earlier Baha’i scholars? How do they see the work that they are doing in relationship to the work which has gone before, for instance the work of Mirza Abu’l-Fazl [Ed. alt. spelling Mirza Abu'l-Fadl]? are they continuing in a tradition or are they starting a new tradition?

Loni replied that she felt that the scholars studying today were aware of the past and saw themselves in some way carrying on a tradition. However, Anthony Lee objected that he felt that Baha’is studying the Faith in Europe today very much saw themselves as a new breed. Though they may be aware of the scholarship which has gone before, they see themselves as distinctly different from Baha’i scholars of the past… more detached, more “scientific”, perhaps, more “objective”. They are not acting as apologists for the Faith, but as detached academics.

Loni admitted that she could not speak for the other Baha’is studying the Faith in Europe, but that her work at least is something new. There has been no academic work or serious research done on the Ministry of Shoghi Effendi. One reason that she picked that field was that it is untouched.

Dr. Banani was asked to clarify his point. He replied that he felt that the consciousness of any group of intellectuals who see themselves as breaking new ground must include their own relationship to the past. Part of any “scientific method” must be a firm knowledge of the intellectual history of one’s field. He wondered how equipped present Baha’i scholars are to see themselves in the history of Baha’i scholarship? Can they really see where they stand? Others objected that it really may not be fair to ask where present scholars stand in relation to history? Does anyone know where he stands? Can he see himself that clearly? And besides, it is probably too soon to say.

Our speaker explained that one reason that Baha’is have been drawn to enter Baha’i Studies on an academic level is their desire to rid the Faith of misinformation which is commonly passed around and believed Baha’is. She explained that she was partially motivated by that reason. For instance, Baha’is often say that there is no ritual or dogma in the Baha’i faith. But, this is simply untrue. There is plenty of both. [Ed. Hand written note: “Can’t say this unless you define terms! SR]

One class member wondered if there are really major adjustments to be made in our understanding of the Baha’i Faith. Are Baha’i scholars really liable to change the way we look at things, say, fifty or hundred years from now? Several Baha’is thought that the answer is decidedly ”yes”. Moreover, they maintained, the whole Baha’i Faith is changing. After all, the way Baha’is say the Faith fifty or one-hundred years ago has changed drastically.

Ms. Bramson pointed out that one of the problems with doing work on the Faith at a Catholic University is the lack of supervision and assistance from professors. Both of her supervisors are Catholic priests who, know next to nothing about the Baha’i Faith. They have simply left her alone and she has had to seek guidance from within the Baha’i Community. Even here there is little help.

Dr. Banani suggested that is probably better for Baha’is to take up Baha’i Studies after they have already obtained a higher degree in some other field. There is a general lack of supervision and sympathy on the part of one’s superiors. Beyond this there are positive hindrances. Most non-Baha’i scholars will be suspicious of the motives and objectivity of any Baha’i who is studying his own religion, scientific method notwithstanding. After one has proved himself in a neutral field, then he can enter the arena of Baha’i Studies with firm academic credentials.

Ms. Bramson explained to the class that her work had gone through a number of stages. She first intended to do a doctoral thesis on the history of the Faith during the stewardship of the Hands of the Cause —1957-1963. She wrote to the House of Justice concerning this matter and they wrote back to her suggesting that she not use this as the topic of her thesis. They gave no reason. The Rouse also expressed concern that she was going to do work on the Faith at such an eminent Catholic University and asked her to work closely with her LSA and the Counsellor for her area. Loni said that she is happy that she did not pursue her topic on the Hands of the Cause since she feels that too little time has elapsed to give us a proper perspective on those years.

Ms. Branson introduced the class to the work which she had done in the National Baha’i Archives by reading a statement which was presented to the government by the Baha’i community shortly before the turn of the century and recorded in the United States Census of 1900. The statement made it clear that one could be a Baha’i and still be a member of another church or religion. It said that the Faith had no organization of its own, but that it as spread through meetings called “Assemblies” which were open to all who wished to attend. This statement was repeated in the U.S. Census of 1920, apparently with the permission of the Baha’is.

Our speaker explained that the Faith was in this unstructured state at the time that Shoghi Effendi became the Guardian and that he transformed the community into something else. She is interested in studying the history of this transformation — how it came about, what ideas had an influence on Shoghi Effendi, what internal opposition he faced, etc.

At this point some members of the class cautioned against too great an emphasis on the unstructured nature of the Baha’i Community before 1921. They pointed out that the statement published by the Census Bureau was written only six or seven years after the Faith had been introduced into this country and when the believers were still fuzzy about its true nature. It cannot really be used as a statement of the Baha’i situation in 1920, regardless of whether or not it happened to be reprinted. The class recalled the report on Peter Smith’s paper on the history of the American Baha’i Community which was given at an earlier class meeting, (See Vol.. III, No. 5.) Smith noted that there had always been a faction of the Baha’i Community which was interested in organization and structure. It was true that there was also a part of the community opposed to organization, but Abdu’l-Baha had Himself given approval for a substantial transformation in the community by the time of His ascension. So we cannot say that Shoghi Effendi was doing something entirely new when be began to construct a uniform administrative order for the Faith.

Loni acknowledged that this is true. She further noted that her research indicated that the two factions of the Baha’i Community —- the organizers and the anti-organizers — continued to exist until about 1940. By then almost all of the Baha’is had accepted the need for an Administrative Order and acknowledged its importance.

Our speaker explained that most of her research in the National Archives consisted of a study of the letters of the National Spiritual Assembly to the Guardian. These were written by Horace Holley. The letters are organized up to about 1940, so that is as far as she could go. Loni explained that Horace Holley played in the early years, carried on an extensive, almost personal, correspondence with the Guardian in the early, formative years of Baha’i Administration. She said that she was deeply impressed by the important role which Horace Holley played in the development of Baha’i Administration. It seamed to her that many of the ideas end institutions which later became part of the Administrative Order were first suggested by Holley to the Guardian. The Guardian then picked up on then ideas refined and modified them and made them part of the Baha’i Faith.

Loni cautioned that her research findings were only tentative. She has not had a chance to study her notes or to really develop firm ideas yet. In any case, her impressions were extremely interesting and useful.

Loni explained that the Archives facilities at the National Baha’i Center are still quite small. By no means is everything there organized for use by researchers. Only one archivist is employed there, Mr. Roger Dahl. When Loni was there he was in the process of organizing the papers of Agnes Parsons.

She was able to use some materials in the Archives, but unable to see other things. The files of the International Goals Committee are closed to researchers, for instance, probably because they contain personal information about pioneers – The minutes of the National spiritual Assembly are not open. Neither are the letters of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly, primarily because they are not yet organized. Loni noted that the personal papers of Horace Holley collected in Wilmette are extremely sparse, primarily because most of his correspondence was carried on as the secretary of the National Assembly.

AND, ANOTHER LETTER FROM PETER SMITH:

“Humble apologies for once again writing to your esteemed journal with comments on your presentation of a paper given by myself. This time it’s concerning the Vol. III, No. 5, May 1979 issue.

”The account is generally fine but the comments on early Baha’i factionalism grossly overstate my argument. Whilst the larger communities of Chicago and N.Y. were often badly divided by cliquishness, even they were not characterized by completely mutually antagonistic groups. The situation was one of fluidity. There were cliques and there ware tendencies towards division, but there was also co-existence and a fair degree of tolerance. The sense of common identity as followers of ‘Abdu’l-Baha overrode much of the division. In Chicago, where the situation was probably worst, the crunch came in 1917/18 with the allegations of Covenant-breaking and the resultant departure of one of the ‘factions’ from the community. In the smaller communities the situation was more straightforward and united — after all, there are difficulties involved if a group of less than 20 people are divided into ‘5 or 6 mutually antagonistic groups.’

Advance notice: The next Lancaster seminar will be in 1979 — provisional date, April 6-8. Those wishing to attend must complete a three minute intensive training programme in how to be English (We tried to convert Tony when he was over here but I notice he’s still saying that everything is ‘cute’) and send a blank cheque to a numbered Swiss bank account.”

THE NEXT CLASS

The next class will he held on Sunday, August 27th at the home of Anthony Lee, [Ed. Personal address follows]. The speaker will be Mrs. Betty Conow who will make a presentation entitled, “Hierarchies, Analogies and the Degrees of Reality: A Model.”

She explains her topic in these words:

“Any serious attempt to ‘explain’ Reality must make use of certain mental constructs, such as metaphors and similes, analogies, and in the more ambitious attempts, theoretical models. The use of hierarchic order in General Systems Theory is, in many ways, a composite of all of them. (For comparisons, think of Set Theory, Carl Hempel’s ‘Covering Law,’ Aristotle’s ’Greate Chain of Being,’ and ‘Abdu’l-Baba’s ‘Kingdoms of God.’). A model is offered to the class, based en ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s, for approximating Truth, for making statements about the ‘really real,’ and which demonstrates the inadequacies of traditional logic to encompass Ultimate Reality. It’s the old saw about the part trying to extrapolate the whole.’ We have to reverse the logic process. My argument is that only the Divine Teachers have knowledge of the Whole, or of the Divine World, which our created phenomenal world mirrors. By using a model, we can establish the correspondences which exist, and discover that there is only one Reality, but that it is seen and interpreted according to where the observer is positioned in the universal hierarchic order.”

So, everyone be there. August 27th at 3:00 P.M. at Tony’s house. We can see what we can make out of this.

[Ed. Supplemental information re the then upcoming Baha’i Studies Seminar]

Saturday, September 30th

I. Morning Session, introduced by Peter Smith

JUSTIFICATION FOR BAHA’I STUDIES

Suggested Topics:
Are different areas more justifiable than others at present? Are there areas into which it may not be appropriate to enter now?. How can we justify the use of sensitive biographical arid other material?

2. Afternoon Session, introduced by seo5n 1(omen

METHODOLOGY OF BAHA’I STUDIES

Suggested topics:
‘Baha’i’ or ‘academic’ standards? Possible variations in approach between Baha’i and non-Baha‘i scholars? Discussion of the Central Figures of the Baha’i Faith. Methodological problems in cases of cooperation between Baha’i and non-Baha’i scholars. Double standards in Baha’i and non-Baha’i work? Linguistic style and its bearing on method. The use of confidential archives of LSA’s, NSA’s, etcetera

Sunday, October 1st

3. Morning Session, introduced by Denis MacEoin

RELATIONS BETWEEN BAHA’I SCHOLARS AND THE BAHA’I COMMUNITY

Suggested topics:

Prejudice against scholarship and its removal. Attacks on scholars — what measujres can be taken for protection? The responsibility of scholars to other believers. The review of scholarly works for publication. The role of scholars in fixing limits on the growth of myth and legend in popular Baha’i historiography.

4. Afternoon session

WORK. IN PROGRESS

Suggested Topics:
Progress reports from individuals. Sharing ideas and problems. The production of a bibliography. Difficulties in obtaining materials in various languages. International coordination of efforts. Oral and manuscript history projects. Concrete proposals for future developments Establishment of an International Institute for Baha’i Studies.

30 September — 1 October, l97

BOOKING FORM

It is hoped to provide accommodation, possibly in College guest rooms at King’s and/or John’s, for those taking part. A limited amount of accommodation in private homes may be available to those booking early. The sessions will, it is hoped, take place in a suitable roan at either King’s or John’s College- There are several cheap but excellent restaurants (largely catering for students) in the city, and it is proposed that we eat at one of these. Those arriving on Friday evening should proceed to the MacEoin’s flat, [Ed. personal address and phone number]. It is suggested that a party go for dinner to a good restaurant (probably Strudel’s) on the Saturday evening. Please fill in the form below, placing a cross against, those items which are applicable.

Baha’i Studies Seminar, Cambridge, September—October, 1978

( ) I plan to attend the seminar or. both days (Registration fee £1)
( ) I plan to attend the seminar on Saturday only (Fee £1)
( ) I plan to attend the seminar on Sunday only (Fee £1)
( ) I shall be unable to attend
( ) I shall require a copy of the seminar report (Charge 50p)

( ) I wish to join the party for dinner on Saturday evening

Please return the completed form to: Denis MacEoin, 961, King’s College, Cambridge by Wednesday 23rd. at the Latest. kny queries or requests for extra forms should be directed to the seine address.
The registration fee includes a 50p charge for the seminar report. Please enclose a cheque or postal order for the appropriate amount.

[END DOCUMENT]

Related Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.

My Notes:

This newsletter is quite interesting as it contains a lot of statistical data on the Baha’i community of the United States. It has a summary of the 59th National Convention with data on the number of Baha’is, assemblies, as well as information on the Baha’i budget and funds for that year. It may be enlightening to compare these with the most recent National Convention.

Here are some highlights: back then there were 71,189 Baha’is (of those, 1,844 without administrative rights). With 2,242 enrollments during the year (down appx. 1,000 from the previous Baha’i year) and 605 withdrawals of membership. Comparing these numbers to the most recent data, we see a massively negative picture both in absolute and relative numbers.

In the most recent Baha’i year, enrollments were 872 with 369 withdrawals of membership. This not only represents a two thirds reduction from 1978 but also an increase in relative withdrawals (compared to enrollments) from 27% to 42%. That is back then 27% of enrollments withdrew while today 42% did so – keep in mind that this is just a statistical measure and not indicative that the percentage of people that left were necessarily the same as those that entered the community.

In this Convention it was also reported that the NSA would purchase what has become its permanent seat in Evanston. Also, don’t miss the report about the Hand of the Cause of God, Mr. William Sears at the Convention.

If this is your first newsletter, you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[private home address]
Los Angeles, California
July 15th, 1978

Dear Baha’i Friends:

The study class (which still has no official name) met again on June 4th at the home of Tony Lee, whose address appears above. Since Robert Ballenger was not able to be present, Tony took a few random notes on the proceedings. The official topic of the class was to be a critical discussion of Robert Hatcher’s essay The Metaphorical Nature of Physical Reality which has been published in Etudes Baha’i Studies and in a recent issue of World Order. However, the actual discussion ranged far and wide.

We first discussed the present state of the class itself and its prospects for the future (which, unfortunately, do not look very good). Several of the key members of the class are leaving the Los Angeles area and are leaving the country also. Mehrdad Amanat is in Iran for the summer. Chris and Jon Hendershot are planning to move to Venezuela next month. Tony Lee hopes to go to Kenya in the fall. Et cetera. On top of that, we have been having great difficulty obtaining topics for more classes. We have relied heavily on guest speakers recently adn we are simply running out of them. The time and effort required for class members to present well-researched classes seems to be just too much for most of us. So, dear readers, we may be nearing the end of the line. Watch out for signs up ahead warning of a dead end.

METAPHORS AND REALITY

The class found difficulty sticking to the topic of the metaphorical nature of physical reality or the lack of same. Our discussion was free and we talked about everything from abortion and unwed motherhood to capital punishment. But, when we were discussing Dr. Hatcher’s essay we approached it with some caution. Everyone agreed that it is a brilliant piece of work. It is extremely provocative and original in concept and can only be a joy to read. It opens new areas of discussion on the Baha’i approach to reality and life and is a welcome relief from the same old rehash of ideas whcih is so common.

Our caution stemmed from wondering just how seriously we should take Dr. Hatcher’s arguments about the intent of God in bringing into being this created world. His perspective is, to say the least, broad. Should we literally think of the world as a metaphor? Or, is that itself just a metaphor, an instructive tool for thinking about things — not to be taken literally? And, isn’t the whole argument rather circular?

Well, our discussions really didn’t get very far and so there is little more to say. The subject is still open and could easily form the topic of another class.

A REPORT FROM THE AMERICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION

The 59th annual National Baha’i Convention took place in Wilmette and Evanston, Illinois, from May 25 to 28. Class member Bob Ballenger attended the soiree, representing the Hermosa Beach Baha’i Community. Here is his summation of the proceeding:

At Ridvan, a nationwide telephone check tallied the existence of 1,004 local assemblies in the continental United States. However, the final election reports showed the lost assemblies (60) lead advances (new: 23; restored:24), and we wound up with about 993 LSA’s. In his reading of the annual report to the delegates at [the] convention, NSA secretary Glenford Mitchell, said there are about 400 Baha’i groups with five or mroe adult members in them. It is on these large groups that efforts will be concentrated as the American Baha’i community strives to attain its goal of 1,400 spiritual assemblies on the homefront by Ridvan 1979.

(One report, from a member of the California Regional Teaching Committee, had it that “a couple of hundred” of these large groups had nine or more members — but had failed to form at Ridvan. Ballenger asked Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh of the NSA about this. Dr. Kazemzadeh confirmed the existence of some such groups, but said he did not think there were a couple of hundred. He explained that some such large groups were formed as teh result of street teaching campaigns and, in some areas, people came into the Faith who now simply could not be located. He added that the movement of 500-600 Baha’is on the homefront could insure victory for the plan.)

Of the roughly 1,000 assemblies in the states, 201 of them exist in California. At a meeting, during the convention, of the California Baha’is representing local assemblies, it was pointed out that had it not been for out lost assemblies, we would have already made our 1,400 nationwide assembly goal. By the end of the Five Year Plan, California is to have 265 assemblies, an addition of 53 assemblies with no losses. (Illinois has not had a lost assembly in two years.) By way of comparison, it was pointed out that the Faith in California has grown from 30 to 201 local assemblies in only 25 years.

Current statistics: There are (as of March/April figures) 70,055 Baha’is in the continental United States, plus another 1,844 Baha’is who are without administrative rights, for a total of 71,189 on the rolls. During the last year (April 1977 to April 1978) there were 2,242 enrollments, a figure that is down about 1,000 from the previous year. (In addition, 310 American Baha’is died and another 605 withdrew from membership.) There are about 7,000 Baha’i youth in the states, but only 3,000 to 5,000 of these have known addresses. This is down considerably from a few years ago.

BUDGET

Dr. Dorothy Nelson, the national treasurer recommended, and the convention accepted, a new budget of $4 million, up $400,000 from last year’s $3.6 million. With more than 70,000 Baha’is on the rolls, it works out to just over $57 per Baha’i for the year to make that goal. Contributions from the previous year amounted to only $2.94 million, $560,000 short of the annual goal. However, the National Fund received $588,000 in estate bequests. By holding actual expenditures to only 93% of the amount budgeted, and adding in the bequests, the NSA managed to avoid a deficit and end the year about $25,000 ahead.

ELECTION RESULTS

There were 171 delegates eligible to vote in the National Assembly election. Of that amount, 157 did so in person and another 11 by mail, for a total of 168. Three delegates did not vote. As a result of this balloting, (surprise!) the same nine National Assembly members were elected. Here, in order of the votes they received is the membership list: Soo Fouts (153), Dorothy Nelson (150), Dan Jordan (138), Franklin Khan (128), Glenford Mitchell (127), Firuz Kazemzadeh (120), James Nelson (104), Magdalene Carney (102), Richard Betts (89). The election of officers on the assembly produced these results: Chairman: Dan Jordan, Vice Chairman: James Nelson, Treasurer: Dorothy Nelson, Secretary: Glendord Mitchell, Assistant Secretary: Magdalene Carney (who replaced Soo Fouts at this post). And, a new office was created this year and Soo Fouts was elected special assistant secretary for teaching.

The tenor of the convention itself wavered somewhere between a sales meeting and a church revival. Remarks such as those Dan Jordan made when he said “the whole of mankind is at a crossroads and we’re directing traffic” were fairly common. On another occasion, it was said that if the Baha’is are to renew themselves spiritually, “every cell is going to belong to Baha’u'llah and the Five Year Plan.” If you like that kind of talk, you would have loved the convention. While there were a number of spiritual highs, it also ought to be noted that the quality of consultation was ragged. In fact, consultation in the sense of agreement on the facts and ascertainment of the underlying spiritual principles never existed.

An inordinate amount of time was expended, for example, on the relatively minor issue of whether an “official” set of convention notes ought to be kept. This issue arose when one delegate complained that last year’s convention highlights excluded much of what occurred. He wanted access to an official set of convention notes to share as part of his report to the constituency he represented. Dan Jordan, the acting chairman of the convention, responded that the problem with “official” notes was their inaccuracy. Past notes have listed motions as having passed when they did not, and, in general, were of varying quality and accuracy. Delegates discussed the issue, which is to say they argued about it, re-stating the problem and generally got nowhere. The proposal finally went down to defeat.

It was annonced at the convention that the National Assembly is spending $2.5 million to purchase an office building in Evanston to serve as the administrative headquarters of the Faith in the United States. Offices now scattered in six or eight various locations will be consolidated in this building.

In another bit of building news, it was learned, although not announced at the convention, that the bottom steps at the House of Worship were never constructed as a single, integrated unit with the rest of the House of Worship. As a result, the expansion-contraction cycle of summer and winter in Wilmette has meant that a steady round of repair work on the deck of the Temple has to be undertaken. The deck area is constantly buckling and is even hazardous in some areas. One estimated cost to correct the problem: About $2 million, or roughly as much as it cost to erect the entire House of Worship in the first place.

By special request, a portion of the convention was given over to the topic of divorce. Dr. Jeff Marke of the National Center was asked for his views on the topic. He said, although he has no figures comparing Baha’i divorce with that of the national average, there seems to be no significant difference between the two. Marks noted that there seems to be a disproportionate divorce rate among Baha’i couples in their 20′s, which indicates that Baha’i youth have no real understanding of what Baha’i marriage means. Many marriages between Baha’is collapse for shallow reasons of boredom or a feeling that the spark has evaporated from the relationship. Marks said the only valid grounds for Baha’i divorce is deep personal aversion amounting to antipathy, repugnance and loathing. Too often, he noted, local Assemblies function as passive partners in marital breakup, handling Baha’i year of patience cases as routine events, recording them but making no real effort to affect a reconciliation between couples.

The highlight of the convention was the appearance on Saturday night, May 27, of Hand of the Cause of God Mr. William Sears. He spoke at a special outdoor dinner held on the lawn of the National Hazira[tu'l-Quds], across the street from the House of Worship on teh lakefront property owned by the Faith. A huge blue and white tent had been erected for the occasion. And, as the breeze from the lake cooled off the end of a hot, muggy day, Mr. Sears began by reminding his listeners that, when Abdu’l-Baha laid the cornerstone of the House of Worship, that meeting was also held in a tent. Similarly, the cornerstone ceremony for the House of Worship in Kampala, Uganda also was held under a tent. At one point during His life in the Holy Land, Baha’u'llah pitched His tent on the side of Mt. Carmel.

Surveying the audience, Mr. Sears said, “They tell me this is a victory tent, and this is a victory convention. I hope that the spirit of all these tents will rub off on us tonight.” He urged the Baha’is to unite and win the goals because, as Shoghi Effendi said, the Baha’is have to get better as the world turns worse and so far, things are getting worse faster than we are getting better. Noting that the American Baha’i community was seriously lagging in reaching its Five Year Plan homefront goals, Mr. Sears said the situation reminded him of a story he ehard about two Irishmen caught up in the events of the French Revolution. They were arrested and sentenced to die by beheading. They did not discuss their fate with each other until the day of their execution, when both men were laid out, side by side, on twin guillotines. As the blades were released and dropped toward their necks, one Irishman turned to the other and said, “Now here’s my plan…” Mr. Sears paused while the audience roared with laughter and said “And, that’s the status of the homefront.”

IN THE MAIL

We got a letter from Peter Smith of Lancaster, England, commenting on our analysis of his paper The Routinization of Charisma: Some Comments on Peter L. Berger’s ‘Motif Messianique et Processus Social dans le Bahaisme’ (March 1978 Newsletter). He writes:

“I wonder if I might be allowed a couple of comments on the class discussion of my The Routinization of Charisma paper.

Firstly, a correction. The point about the messianic motif is not that it faded in importance in the period after Baha’u'llah (as stated in the class report), but that it became transformed. In the paper I distinguish between two aspects of the ‘messianic motif’: expectation of a messianic figure and expectation of a millenium. There seems every reason to suppose that the early Babis (a similarity here to the early Christians) expected that the coming of the Bab heralded the near advent of the millenium. In contrast, later Baha’is distinguished between the period when their messiah figures came (The Heroic Age) and the future period of the millenium (The Golden Age, The Most Great Peace). The period we are now in (The Formative Age) is seen by Baha’is as linking these two: using the spiritual impetus of the former to establish the latter. The strong emphasis given by Baha’is to the shortcomings of the present age and the need to build a New World Order are a testimony to the continuing importance of the messianic motif. The bulk of the Baha’i teaching endeavour would seem to centre on this concept and much of the rationale for various Baha’i activities (eg establishing LSA’s) is presented in terms of preparing for the future World Order.

Secondly, to defend myself against the charge of ‘Babi bias’ (ie that the analysis is more suggestive for Babi history than it is for Baha’i), as you correclty state the ‘esoteric-gnostic’ motif is no longer of much importance (although there may be certain aspects which might be due for a revivial) which leaves the other three motifs: polar (The Covenant); messianich (work towards a future World Order); and legalistic (the development of Baha’i Law and Administration) as the characteristic features of the Baha’i religion in the modern period. I would argue that this is precisely the case. In contrast to the Heroic Age and the early part of the Formative Age (the establishment of the Administrative Order) when a complex relationship existed between the various motifs and dramatic changes in their development occured, the modern period has been far more stable, the great changes which have occurred in the Faith since the 1930′s can all be more easily conceptualized as changes within these three motifs rather than any actual change in motifs.

Bearing in mind that motifs are only analytical constructs, aids for conceptualizing complex historical processes, you could always run a motif-spotting competition, of course. Say, one free copy of the Hermosa Beach Bulletin for every fresh motif identified in Baha’i history — Second prize: Two copies.”

AND MORE LETTERS

Ron Carrigan of Santa Monica writes:

“… let me make a few observations about the newsletter and the class. I have had a wealth of positive reaction to both over these past several months. Howeer, I must echo the sentiments of a recent correspondent to the Editor who suggested that there seems at times to be an air of cynicism and sarcasm toward the Faith and its institutions. For example, I have had two very negative reactions to two comments made in the newsletter. One was in the last issue, it was mentioned that in the initial days of the Five Year Plan, Baha’is had behaved in a ‘blitzkrieg’-like manner with regard to teaching activities. In additon to the authors poor judgement in these word choices, there is an irony about the thinking invovled. The Faith is so opposed to the use of guns and violence, that linking it to such become a tasteless derision. I am sure the author can do better.”

AND THE NEXT CLASS…

We are lucky enough to have Loni Bramson in town for a few weeks. Ms. Bramson is doing her doctorate in Religious Studies in Belgium where she is also a pioneer. Her dissertation will be on some aspect of the development of the Baha’i Faith under the Guardianship. She has recently completed two weeks of research in the National Baha’i Archives in Wilmette. She will speak to the class about her work and may be able to giv eus some news of the Five Year Plan in Europe.

The class will be held at 2:00 pm at the home of Tony Lee [private address follows] on Sunday, July 23rd. Please try to be there.

[END DOCUMENT]

Related Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.

My Notes:

This is a very informative edition of the LA Class Study Notes because it contains a summary along with discussion of the papers presented at the 1978 Baha’i Studies Seminar held at the University of Lancaster. Inside you can find out such interesting tidbits as: the history of the Finnish Baha’i community, the interaction of the early Babi and Baha’i community with Christian misionaries, whether the Bab claimed to be sent by the Hidden Imam or to be the Hidden Imam, the reconciliatory nature of Baha’i mysticism, whether the early American Baha’i community was as disorganized as usually thought and finally the already discussed history of the Baha’is of Ishqabad (Mentioned in the notes previously here, here, here and here) .

If this is your first newsletter, you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

May, 1978
Vol. III, No. 5

NOTWITHSTANDING his long and valiant service to our study class, our faithful note-taker and scribe left for the day our last class held on May 7th at the Hendershot abode. We therefore have a substitute scribbler who may or may not be able to make sense out of the proceedings any better. Please, therefore, forgive the inaccuracies in reporting and the typos since this is all new to this pen-holding hand.

Our speaker at this gathering was Tony Lee who recently returned from an international Baha’i Studies Seminar held at the University of Lancaster in England. The seminar was sponsored jointly by the Departments of Religious Studies and Sociology at the institution through the encouragement of Peter Smith, a Baha’i who is a graduate student there. Six papers were presented and discussed and about twelve or fifteen people participated in the seminar. Despite his unfamiliarity with the Queen’s English (he kept risking his life there by calling the houses in Lancaster “cute”), Tony managed to present a paper and take excellent notes in order to report the proceedings to us. A copy of the program is attached to this newsletter and if anyone is particularly interested in receiving copies of any of the papers after reading the summaries, they should try writing to the authors:

• Denis MacEoin, Kings College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
• Tony Lee, [Ed. personal address follows]
• Denise Mossop, (c/o Peter Smith)
• Peter Smith, [Ed. personal address follows]
• Harri Peltola, [Ed. personal address follows]

The first paper which Tony discussed was “The Shaykhi Reaction to Babism in the Early Period” by Denis MacEoin. Mr. MacEoin was not at Lancaster to personally present his 41 page document, but the paper was read and generated some discussion. The paper is concerned with the attitudes which certain Shaykhi leaders, particularly Haji Muhammad Karim Khan Kirmani, to the Bab and to the growth of His new religion. The principal argument of the paper was that the Babi Movement spread initially among the Shaykhi networks, shattering the unity of the Shaykhis and causing them to beome the most vigorous enemies of the new Faith. The Shaykhi opposition to the Bab provided the leaders of the school with a point of agreement with orthodox Shi’ih ulama. This point of common opposition to the Babi Faith was used by the Shaykhi leaders to reintegrate their school into mainstream Shi’ih Islam and repudiate many of the radical and distinctive teachings of Shaykh Ahmad [Ahsayi] and Siyyid Kazim [Rashti]. The paper also shed some new light on the Bab Himself and onto the Baha’i understanding of Babi history.

For example, MacEoin makes the point that the Bab did not claim to be the Return of the Hidden Imam until the time of his imprisonment in Mah-Ku [Ed. also Mahku] in 1847/48. He states that those Babis who met the Bab in Shiraz in May of 1844 and thereafter accepted Him as the representative or gate (bab) of the Imam, who would make things ready for the coming of the Imam. Of course, if this is so, it would have tremendous implications for what the Bab actually told Mulla Husayn on the night of His declaration and what Mulla Husayn was actually looking for when he came to Shiraz.

MacEoin develops his position by quoting from early works of the Bab in which he prays for the appearance of the Imam (or the promised Qa’im), He claims that the Qa’im has inspired his work, etc. One quote from the Sahifa-yi ‘Adliyya of the Bab reads:

The meaning and form of expression of all the verses which God hath caused to flow from my tongue are as utter nothingness when compared with a single letter of the Book of God (Qur’an) or the words of the people of the House of Purity (the Imam)

and again

the words that have flowed forth from my tongue and pen…can never equal a single letter of the prayers of the People of Purity, for they dwell in the substance of the Will of God while all others are subject to the influences of their actions.

MacEoin claims that Nabil and other Babi and Baha’i chronicles have gone wrong by attributing the Bab’s later claims to His initial meetings with Shaykhis. In the beginning, the Bab was believed to be sent by the Hidden Imam. This seems to have meant that He has a higher status than Siyyid Kazim or Shaykh Ahmad, but a lower status than the Imam himself. Nor, according to MacEoin did the Bab urge his followers to abandon the Shari’a, the Muslim laws and rituals. In this early period He specifically wrote to His followers that they must observe all of the externals of the Law.

Perhaps because of its uncommon theme, this paper generated much discussion among the study class members. Some felt that much of MacEoin’s evidence could be interpreted in several ways. Perhaps the Bab had only veiled his real claims (perhaps made only verbally) by the use of vague and misleading language in his Writings. Another question asked was: If the Bab was only claiming to be the leader of the Shaykhi school, why was He imprisoned and regarded as so much more dangerous than the other Shaykhi leaders? Why were His followers persecuted?

One possible answer to this question is that the Bab, while not claiming to be the Qa’im Himself, did claim to be in communication with the Qa’im and thereby excited messianic expectations and demonstrations among the people. This may have caused His arrest. (It should also be remembered that the Shaykhi leaders became implacable enemies of the Bab and were largely responsible for his persecution, and finally, His execution.) In Shi’ih doctrine the Hidden Imam is believed to be the ruler of the whole world. He is in hiding, but when He appears, He will take control of the political system of Iran and conquer all of the nations. Even today, the Constitution of Iran states that the Shah rules the nation on behalf of the Hidden Imam (and adds “May God hasten his cming!”). So, the claim to be the Hidden Imam, or even to be in direct communication with Him, is a highly political claim. If taken seriously, it would mean that the state would be delivered into the hands of the claimant.

Another complex question was raised: Do the Manifestations of God know from the beginning what the full degree of their Revelations are? Do they fully recognize from the first moment of their awareness their special station as Manifestations of God? Or, is the matter, perhaps, even unclear to them? In other words, is it possible that the Bab (or Baha’u'llah, or Muhammad, or Jesus for that matter) did not claim their full stations at first because they were not fully aware of their station at first?

One member of the class approached these questions from a broad philosophical perspective. He suggested it is natural for human beings to want to see things in an easy categorical terms. The history of religion especially seems to be the history of people jumping to conclusions and reading the present back into the past. The Guardian has stated that religious truth is “relative, not absolute”. This statement applies not only between religions, but also within a particular dispensation. We know that the principle of progressive revelation applies to each dispensation as well as to the history of religions. (Cf., the Introduction of the House of Justice to the Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas) Perhaps there is also a kind of progressive revelation that occurs in the lives of the Prophets Themselves before the full plentitude of their powers are revealed to them. Perhaps this unfolding is simply the way human beings are prepared by Divine forces for the full impact of a Revelation.

Since Tony Lee had presented his paper on the Baha’i community of Ishqabad to this class earlier in the year, we skipped discussion of his paper and went on to Denise Mossop’s paper on Baha’i Mysticism. (See program.) The paper which Ms. Mossop read at Lancaster was a composite of excerpts from her senior thesis at that university. It received a rather cool response. Though she is English, Ms. Mosop was a Muslim, on her way to becoming a Sufi, when she heard about the Baha’i Faith and embraced it.

The paper compared the Baha’i teachings with Sufi mysticism on one hand, and the formal legalistic tradition of Islam, on the other. The thesis was that the Baha’i Faith establishes a middle ground between an individual mystic experience and a community-oriented, external religious practice. It is a balanced compromise between the two traditions found in Islam. The major question raised at Lancaster concerned the definition of mysticism. The paper never gives an adequate definition, and neither did the participants in the conference. Therefore, no one was quite sure what Baha’i mysticism might be, if indeed it exists at all. One class member observed that since Ms. Mossop does not speak Arabic or Persian, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to compare the Baha’i Writings to those of Sufi mystics.

The next paper discussed was that of Moojan Momen — “Early Contacts Between Baha’is and Christian Missionaries in Persia”. The paper was based on research done in English archives of certain missionary societies which sent workers to Iran in the mid-nineteenth century. It was presented to the seminar in rough, unfinished form, without footnotes. This paper and the one presented by Peter Smith were both drafts of papers which will appear in a forthcoming publication edited by Moojan Momen, entitled Studies in Baha’i History, to be published by George Ronald in England.

Momen’s paper brought to light a number of previously unkonw contacts between missionaries and Babis/Baha’is in the period between 1844 and about 1910. The paper was primarily concerned with English missionaries and their encounters with the Faith, but also included some closing notes on American missionaries. Both sets of missionaries initially reacted with enthusiasm to their discovery of Babis or Baha’is. They saw them as a liberal group, liberated from Muslim superstition and ripe for conversion to Christianity. They hoped that the Babi Faith would provide their opening to the eventual evangelization of all of Iran.

Momen was able to uncover one fascinating incident in which a number of Babis (Azalis) in Isfahan pretended to convert to Christianity in 1871. Rev. Robert Bruce, the missionary who presided over these conversions, sent enthusiastic reports home. However, he was soon to be disappointed when it became clear that these conversions were a result of a major famine which was killing thousands in Iran. Since the missionaries had ready access to famine relief funds, it is not surprising that a few individuals should be willing to come to Bruce and express an interest in Christianity and even pretend to be converted.

Momen writes: “This episode is of great interest since Bruce’s reports shed some light on the state of the Babi community in what can perhaps be termed the Dark Age of Babi-Baha’i history. By that appelation is meant that there is a period from 1852 until about 1875, for which there is a great dearth of source materials that shed light on what was happenign to the Babi community in Persia during this crucial phase of its development, when, bit by bit it was being transformed into the Baha’i community.” Bruce reports a great deal of fragmentation among Babis. There were at least three different groups of Babi/Baha’is in Isfahan during this period — all antagonistic to one another.

Another account from Barfurush (now Babul) in 1852 demonstrates the disorganization of the Babis and their bitterness towards Islam. A missionary relates that he met some Muslims in the street who asked for some Christian tracts against Islam. He asked why, to which they replied:

“Because we detest Mohamed, and ridicule his Koran.” During the short conversation which I had with them in the street, I learnt they were secret followers of the Bab, the renowned Persian socialist, whose community two years ago menaced both the religion and throne of Persia…. I informed my aquaintances in the street, that I should be happy to see them in the caravanserai, but they were afraid to see me, for fear of exciting suspicion. One of them, who from his white turban appeared to be a mullan, ‘Inshallah,’ (ie please God,) ‘we shall yet drive Mohamed, Ali, and all the Imams from Persia; and whether we become Ingleese, or Russ(ian), (meaning Christians of either Churches) is to us a matter of indifference, since all creeds are better than that of the Arabian robber.”

The missionary left their company quickly, feeling that their language was too violent and their hatred of Islam too bitter to continue the conversation in a public thoroughfare.

This quotation excited some discussion in the class. One person felt that it was quite odd to find Babis attacking Muhammad and Islam. Though they may be bitter towards Muslims, (this was a year of major persecution against Babis in Iran) they should not have attacked the Prophet. He wondered if the Babis had not tailored their remarks for the missionary, pretending to hate Islam in order to gain his attention and favor. It is also possible that the missionary misunderstood what the Babis were actually saying and took their disaffection from Islam as an attack on the person of Muhammad and the Koran.

Others felt that there was no reason to make these assumptions, but that the incident could be taken at face value. If so, it is a valuable indication of the nature of the Babi community during this period — confused, frightened and antagonistic to Islam.

Of course, the relationship between Baha’is and missionaries eventually turned sour as the Christians realized that the Faith would not be a rich source of converts and even threatened to be the greatest rival in the field of conversion. By the turn of the century, English missionaries were writings tracts in Persian against the Faith. Within a few years initial cordial relations were cut off completely.

American missionaries in the north of Iran followed a similar pattern of interest, disillusionment and then antagonism towards the Baha’is, but here the final break was a much more dramatic and bitter affair. Several missionaries printed articles in English journals highly critical of the Baha’i Faith. Rev. S. O. Wilson of the Tabriz mission finally published Baha’ism and its Claims, the first full volume written in a European language attacking the Faith. This was followed by other works of similar nature. It is interesting that the only serious, full-scale attacks on the Faith in the West have been written by former-missionaries to Iran. (This includes Miller’s latest volume, The Baha’i Faith: Its History and Teachings.) This is the primary fruit of this early Christian-Baha’i interaction.

One criticism of Momen’s paper was that he presented the missionaries as the active element and the Baha’is as a passive element in their encounters. While he is careful to explain the motives of the missionaries and the factors which attracted them to the Baha’i community, he fails to provide similar explanations for why Baha’is may have been attracted to missionaries. This is, of course, partially a result of the sources used (ie missionary records). Yet, even here there are some hints. The French consul at Tabriz reported in 1910 that disturbances had broken out in Urniyyih [sic] because the missionaries there had hired a Baha’i to teach Persian in their school. He took the opportunity to convert every one of hsi students to the Baha’i Faith! He was dismissed and the missionaries were asking that he be expelled from the town. (Smile.)

The next paper discussed was that of Harri Peltola, “The History of the Baha’i Faith in Finland: A Case Study in the Sociology of Counterculture.” Although the paper was written in Finnish, Mr. Peltola gave highlights of the paper in English. He began with a long, theoretical introduction on the definition of counterculture and the nature of this phenomenon. Unfortunately, this analysis was then dropped and he began recounting the history of the Faith in Finland without ever integrating these two sections of the paper.

The history of the Faith began in Finland in 1933 when Martha Root gave a talk there in Esperanto. However, the Faith had been mentioned in print in Finland as early as 1897. The first Baha’i moved to Finland in 1938 from the U.S. and converted the first believer, a young priest, to the Faith the same year. But, by 1952 there were still only 8 Baha’is in the whole country. They were all (it seems) from theosophical or metaphysical backgrounds and saw the Faith as a ‘society’ to which they belonged… (in Peltola’s own words) a kind of hobby.

In 1958, the Hands of the Cause in the Holy Land recommended to the Baha’is in Finland that they sever their church affiliations. However, this was only a suggestion and many chose not to follow this advice. In 1962, there being now 80 Baha’is in the country, the government afforded full recognition to the Faith. This recognition obliged the believers to leave their churches and register as Baha’is. Some refused to do so and left the Faith.

By 1969 there were 120 Baha’is in Finland, but still no youth. The greatest growth in the Faith took place in the years between 1970 and 1973, when scores of young people became Baha’is (perhaps because they saw the Baha’i Faith as a counterculture). There are now about 250 Baha’is in the country. Sadly, many of the young converts to the Faith have gotten lost.

Peltola reported that in 1962 a Finnish priest wrote a full volume book attacking the Faith. The book has recently been reprinted. This is pretty amazing considering the number of Baha’is in the country and the fact that Finnish is not a very popular language. Someone in Finland must see the Faith as a big threat.

The final paper discussed was by Peter Smith, “The American Baha’i Community, 1896-1925: Emergence from a Cultic Melieu.” Peter himself has summarized the argument of his paper in a recent report on the conference as follows”

Peter Smith (Lancaster) in a paper entitled, “The American Baha’i Community, 1896-1925: Emergence from a Cultic Melieu”, sought to identify the main themes in early American Baha’i history, giving particular attention to questions of authority. Part of the paper consisted of a description of the gradual emergence of a national administrative structure, centering on the Baha’i Temple Unity. It was argued that as many early American Baha’is came from a particular religious background (the Metaphysical movement) which inclined them towards suspicion of “organization”, tentions were engendered within the American Baha’i community by this emerging administration. These tensions came to a head at the time of the First World War, after which there was a gerater acceptance of organizational forms which presaged later developments during the period of the Guardianship and which marked the American Baha’i community’s emergence from the cultic melieu.

Peter Smith is a graduate student at the University of Lancaster working on a doctorate in sociology. The topic of his dissertation will be on the sociological development of the Baha’i Faith. (Apparently, he intends to take on the whole thing.) He has done research in the Baha’i National Archives of Canada, the United States and Great Britain. His paper was based on his research in Wilmetter.

Smith’s paper implicitely attacked the widespread notion that the American Baha’i Community was, during the time of Abdu’l-Baha, a loose, unstructured and unorganized group which only took on shape and organizational form during the ministry of Shoghi Effendi with the rise of the Administrative Order. The paper demonstrated that from the early days of the Faith in America there have always been two tendencies in the community: one towards organization and structure, the other towards spiritual speculation and lack of structure. During Abdu’l-Baha’is time, these two factions of the Baha’i community sometiems took each other on in full battle.

Smith’s paper was fascinating in the light which was able to throw on the nature of the Baha’i community before 1925. The most striking feature of that community, for the modern Baha’i at least, is its unrelieved factionalism. Each city would have not one Baha’i group, or even two, but five or six mutually antagonistic groups all calling themselves Baha’is. This might include groups of Covenant-breakers and Baha’is who followed different teachers. Often the women would have a group of their own, though it is usually centered around a male figure. In Chicago, for instance, there was established the House of Spirituality (that is, the Spiritual Assembly) to which only men could be elected; and then, there was the Women’s Assembly of Teaching. These two bodies were not always on the best of terms. In light of these kinds of divisions, Abdu’l-Baha’s constant exhortations tothe community for unity take on new meaning.

Smith noted that before the Faith was established in America it had not attracted any substantial number of believers from a Christian background and remained essentially a phenomenon within Persian Shi’ih Islam. It was this initial period of growth outside of the Faith’s original Islamic melieu which established the breadth of its appeal and its ability to adapt to alien religious traditions. What we have in the West is, in some sense, our own ‘home grown’ variety of the Faith.

Peter Smith has summarized some of the common themes found in the historical papers presented at the Lancaster Conference as follows:

The historical papers ranged considerably in time and locale… A common theme which might be discerned in mos tof the historical papers is the way in which Babi and Bah’ai communities have evolved into relative independence from various milieu: from a movement within Shaykhism to an independent religious community bitterly condemned by the new Shaykhi leadership; from a de facto part of a newly established Persian Shi’a community in Ishqabad to an independent religious community officially recognized by the government and possessing its own distinctive institutions; from a loosely organized part of the “cultic milieu” of early twentieth century America, to a more tightly organized community with a stronger sense of its separate identity and mission; and from an individualistic “Baha’i Society” whose members retained nominal membership in the state church, to an independent religious community officially recognized by the Finnish authorities. In two of these cases (Lee, Peltola) government recognition has been an important feature in this evolutionary process, whilst in the Babi case governmental and clerical opposition was a major factor; in two cases (MacEoin, Smith) internal tensions within the community contributed significantly, and in the Ishqabad, American and Finnish examples external directives from central Baha’i authorities were important.

The study class went on to discuss other general concerns which were raised at the Lancaster Conference. These included the question of the role of faith in the academic study of the Baha’i Faith. What assumptions, if any should the Baha’i make as he approaches a serious study of the Faith from an academic point of view? The importance of this kind of study of the Faith was also discussed. At this point in Baha’i history, is it just a luxury or does it have an important role to play in the Baha’i Community. Unfortunately, spce does not allow a summary of these discussions.

All sessions will be held in Room B65, Sociology Department, Cartmel College, University of Lancaster.

Saturday, 15th April

11:00 – 12:15 Denis MacEoin (Cambridge)
“The Shaykhi reaction to Babism in the early period”.

12:15 – 2:00 Lunch

2:00 – 3:15 Tony Lee (Los Angeles)
“The Baha’i community of Ishqabad, Russian Turkistan”.

3:15 – 3:45 Tea

3:45 – 5:00 Denise Mossop (Lancaster)
“The mediatory role of Baha’i: a comparison of Sufi and Baha’i mysticism”.

5:00 – 6:00 General discussion of the three papers.

Sunday, 16th April

10:00 – 11:15 Moojan Momen (Cambridge)
“Early contacts between Baha’is and Christian missionaries”.

11:15 – 11:45 Coffee

11:45 – 1:00 Peter Smith (Lancaster)
“The American Baha’i community, 1894-1925″.

1:00 – 2:00 Lunch

2:30 – 3:45 Harri Peltola (Helsinki)
“The history of the Baha’i Faith in Finland: a case study in the sociology of counterculture”

3:45 – 4:15 Tea

4:15 – 5:30 Discussion of last three papers.

5:30 – 6:30 “Baha’i Studies” – general discussion

Peter Smith
Department of Sociology
University of Lancaster

[END DOCUMENT]

Related Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.