http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Culhane.htm
*Terry Culhane's attempt at defense of the tyrannical and oppressive
system of interrogation discloses the appalling lack of liberty and
freedom of conscience within the baha'i faith and its betrayal of
Abdul-Baha's Teachings*:
From: TLCULHANE <***@aol.com>
Subject: My case - a letter to my friends
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 2:12 PM
Dear Friends,
I had hoped my case would not be a topic of public conversation
and
especially an uninformed topic of conversation. One of the dangers of
lack of
knowledge is sheer speculation that allows for the assertion of
preformed
ideological templates to dominate discourse.
Please consider this an open letter to my friends. It will be the
only
public response I will make. If anyone wishes to continue to speak
with me
about it I will do that in a private conversation as among friends.
In February I had a meeting with two ABm's. The original purpose
of the
meeting was to gather information about a workshop I had presented at
Bosch
Bahai school. Two people (out of 62 attendees) had written to the
House of
Justice protesting what they understood about my comments.
The House of Justice passed the 'protest message' to the NSA and the
Continental Counselors for follow up. The Counselors in turn
authorized two
ABm's to meet with me to gather information about what had taken place
at
Bosch. So far so good.
One of the ABm's concluded that this was an opportunity to do more
than
inquire after information. This person effectively conducted the
meeting as
though it was an interrogation of my theological views among them my
views of
the station of Baha u llah, my interest in the Maiden writings of Baha
u llah
and ,of course, my discussion of the Mashriqu l Adhkar . That was the
problem
as well as how the meeting was arranged and conducted by the ABm.
I was not informed two ABm's would be present, nor who authorized
the meeting
or to whom the ABm's would be reporting.
Friends I am quite human and cycled through a series of emotions
from anger
to betrayal,to disgust, to bewilderment and frustration and relief. I
went
thorugh this twice, once in February and again in May after the April
7 letter
became public.
How did I handle this 'test' of my faith and why have I *chosen* to
remain a
Bahai? The simple explanation is I love Baha u llah. As many of you
know I am a
mystic by temperament which explains my attraction to the spiritual
and social
reality of the Mashriqu l Adhkar and the "Maiden " writings of Baha u
llah.
Both times during my "emotional cycle" S/He came to me and I was
draped in that
"silken Robe of Light." As best I can describe in words we "talked"
about my
pain and anguish and " My distress and banishment in this remote
prison." This
is the personal God who reached in and touched my soul and said I
understand
and shared with me that "perfume of a grace which to tongue can
describe." I
was reminded that "this not a field for the foolish and faint of
heart." If I
thought the vision of Baha u llah was easily realized, that all the
hope and
redemption that His message represents was attainable without effort
or without
transformation I learned better. The course of human history in
general and
religious history in particular will change but it will be through
multigenerational blood sweat and spirtual tears.
In the midst of this struggle I wrote to the Counselors and the
House of
Justice , the latter on March 30. I have met with Counselor Birkland
twice and
we have spoken fro several hours about my case and what I called in my
letter
to the House the "far too widespread culture of fear and suspicion in
the
community.
The Counselor extened me an apology for what happened and he assumed
responsibility for it. There was no passing the buck or kicking the
proverbial
dog in his response to me. Our conversations were honest ,open and
reflective
on both our parts. He was gracious and loving in his conversations
with me. he
also clearly said to me that as Counselor he has no problem with my
theological
views and they were not at issue. This saga has also affected my
community and
he has been most supportive of the LSA and its goals and has
publically
expressed that support. I have greast respect for anyone who is
capable of
admitting mistakes,assuming responsibility for them and looking for
ways to
move forward and heal divisions and misunderstandings. This is exactly
how
Counselor Birkland responded to me and therfore it can be stated I
have great
respect for his character as a man.
In the course of my conversations with the Counselor and my
observation of
his interaction with the LSA and the community I have been able to
observe in
action what I write about as the *ethic* of consultation and its
requirements
of mutual recognition and reciprocity. I understand consultation to be
a *non
adversarial* form of communicative action and the recognition and
reciprocity
involved is fundamentally about the recognition (the irfan) tha we are
all made
in the image and likeness of God. That is the starting point of Bahai
discourse
in my view. I have observed the Counselor engage what I write about.
I had
similar conversations with Counselor Ghadirian, and Paul Dodenhoff
will
understand my reference here, whom I found to be an example of Abraham
Heschels
"analysis of piety."
In late May the famous April 7 letter became public.I was very
concerned
about its reference to the Mashriqu l Adhkar as I had raised this
question
directly with the House in my March 30 letter to them. This letter ,
which I
have said before and wil state again is one of the more poorly written
letters
to come from the World Centre. Poor writing style is somethging which
can be
clarified and improved upon.Iit is not *proof" of dictatorial
behavior. On may
26 I wrote a summary of my views of the Mashriqul Adhkar and sent a
copy of
it,with reference to my March 30 letter to the House of Justice. On
May 31 I
received a letter from the House of Justice which stated:
" The House of Justice very much appreciates the clarity and
candor of your
expression in regard to the issues troubling you. It wishes, first of
all, for
you to be assured that it did not say or feel that you had violated
any of its
policies or had been disobedient to it in relation to your discussions
about
the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar."
The response of the House of Justice ia hardly a case of
"Plausibility
structures and denial. I am perfectly capable of discussing
"plausability" as
it is used in the sociology of knowledge especially as formulated by
Berger and
Luchmann.The ideological twist to it is innacurate on theoertical
grounds and
inapplicable to the coments of the House of Justice. Their letter was
a
response to my questions two months earlier before anything related to
the
April 7 letter becamea public issue. The disingenious combination of
the
sociologocal concept of plausability structuresd with the ideological
concept
of "plausible denial" is an example of a preformed template that will
generate
conclusions even in the absence of substantive knowledge of a case. In
this
situation the facts of my case.
My conversations with the Counseolrs have reinforced my convivtion
that
this comm ent in the April 7 letter did not and was not intended to
refer to my
actions. As early as March 20 Counselor Birklnad reiterated that point
to me in
our conversation. I aslo know for a *fact* that the Counselor had been
in
communication with the World Centre about my case and that the House
wanted the
Counselor to meet with me and resolve this problem.
Furthermore the House of Justice wrote:
"That the meeting to which you were invited by the Auxiliary Board
members
became a cause of distress to you is deeply regretted by the House of
Justice.
But it was glad to learn from your email that Counsellor Stephen
Birkland met
with you subsequently in a sympathetic attempt to remedy the
difficulties of
your experience. You should therefore feel assured that your concern
has been
taken seriously and an earnest attempt made to deal with it. The
House of
Justice trusts that the burden of your heart has thus been relieved
and that
you can now refocus your energies on continuing your dedicated service
to the
Cause."
Friends, dictators and totalitarians do not express deep regret
that a
soul was disressed or estranged by certian actions. They most
assuredly do not
take steps or direct that steps be taken to resolve the anguish or
distess of
*one human being. yet that is exactly what the House of Justice did in
my case.
They intervened on my behalf because of the mistakes that were made in
my case
by Institutional representatives.
For anyone who is unable to distinguish bettwen acts of love and
care and
hypocritical PR damage control I have compassion. This kind of
cynical linkage
is an example Orwellian newspeak where love becomes hate. Are we
really so long
gone and so far from Baha u llah that acts of love,
kindness,magnanimity cannot
be perceived for what they are?Iis the world truly that barren ?
I am many things but pollyanna is not one of them. I am Jamesian
twice born
soul who has hope. And that hope involves believing in spite of the
evidence
and watching the evidence change. It is easy to be cynical. In a world
that
needs the hope and promise that life can be lived at a higher level
and that
needs to know human history canchange,however slowly or haltingly
cynicism and
prolonged despair is a betrayal of the centuries long aspirations of
human
beings. I believe with all my heart that anyone,of whatever background
or
religious tradition who indulges such despair has not simply forgotten
God but
has forgotten humanity. My challenge to my friends is to forego the
temptation
of cynicism and despair because the "wondrous system" of Baha u llah
has not
attained perfection. Perfection and transformation do not happen in
the
abstract they happen with real human beings. The "system" of Baha u
llah will
only function as well as the people who comprise it. Their is much
work to be
done and it is the spiritual obligation of each of us to engage the
struggle of
hope and redemption in both it smeaning of overcoming 'sin' and
imperfection
and as the fulfillment of a promise.
I dont say this inognorance. I say this as one who has had his faith
severely
tested in ways that are only meaningful to me. in the past year both
my
daughters bran surgery and stroke and my threological interogation
have been
major spurituakl battles. They have rocked me at the core of me being.
Baha u
llah uppoed the ante for terry Culhane. I want to "see": my beloeved
and She
sais "howmany Husayns greater thanthee have professed their love. I
hope my
willingness to engage the struggle and keep turning to Baha ullah is
some
measure of my love. I often said that if ones wants Paradise, Baghdad
the abode
of peace,the road to that *place* passes through Tehren and the Siyah
Chal.
Each of us has our Siyah Chal our secret place of feasr and despair of
dreans
lost and hopes dashed. yet I can say that we are never alne , the
odder of
that silken Robe of Light is there. Our response is a matter of
"learning the
art of loves ways and the secret of heart surrender." My dear friends
go head
and learn that art and surrender. Give yourself permission! I am a
nobody, a
garden level mystic who Baha u llah did not abandon and who the House
of
Justice did not abandon.
The House is keenly aware of the limitations and imperfections of the
community ,including the functioning of its administrative bodies And
they did
not ask me to preten all was yet paradise, there was no denial nor
attempt to
stiffle me ot shut me up. They acknowledge reality but hey refuse to
sink into
a cynical despair.
They offered me the same challenge Baha u llah has offered me to
believe and
do the work in spite of any evidence and to watch and make the
evidence change.
In response to my concerns about problems "mistakes" and the culture
of fear
and suspicion that I noted they wrote"
" A perspective that may assist in your review of the experience is
that
the institutions of the Faith operating throughout the world, like
individual
believers, are struggling to achieve the high ideals set for them in
the
Writings, and they inevitably make some mistakes even with the best of
motives.
Fortunately, the consequences of such mistakes often provide them with
the
empirical bases for shaping their evolution towards maturity. To the
extent
that the individuals affected are able to deal successfully, both
spiritually
and practically, with the tests involved, the institutions and
individuals
derive mutual benefits. The believers and their God-given
institutions are
intimately joined in a common endeavor to advance the development of a
new
World Order. A significant degree of magnanimity on the part of each
is
essential."
The House of Justice openly acknowledges mistakes were made and have
been
made. Please be fair in your judgement. Do dictators openly
acknowledge
mistakes on the part of governing bodies and express *hope* that both
those
governing bodies and the individuals harmed will learn from them and
move
forward?
They express the recognition that mistakes are trying and can
cause
"distress" to souls. They also expres the *Hope* that individuals such
as
myself will 'hang in there.' And most important they recognize that
';hanging
inther ' requires 'magnanimity". Even a dictoinary can provide us with
the
richness and challenge of the concept of magnanimity. Yet in the midst
of all
that and inthe recognition of mistakes they asked me to consider the
struggles of the Institutions in our common enterprise. In other words
they
asked me to consult, to put *my money where my mouth is about
consultation as
mutual recognition and reciprocity. That recognition is that we are in
this
together. Not withstanding that request they close that section of my
letter
with the following comment.
" This does not mean, of course, that mistakenactions on their part
should be
ignored."
Again be fair in your judgement. Do those bent on dictatorial
control suggest
that mistakes should not be ignored.?
There is no monolithic system around the Bahai world bent on
crushing
people. There are folks everywhere with varying perceptins of what is
important
about the Faith of Baha u llah. We all have to face the struggle to
engage the
standards of Baha u llah and not succumb to cynicism and despair when
the
inevitable imperfections and "mistakes" appear. That is even more true
when we
encounter the bonna fide jerks within the community. Baha u llah
promised many
things in His redemptive message. He did not promise that jerks would
not
become Bahais. How do we respond to mistakes -- with magnanimity and
with the
expectation that consultation must and will take place to address
mistakes.
That consultation is a non adversarial communicative ethic that
recognizes and
reciprocates the spiritual dignity and humanity, the likeness of God
present in
each participant.
What message do *I* see in my recent situation? I do not see
evidence o fa
monolithic power structure. I see abundant evidence of people willing
to work
to overcome divisns and heal hearts and minds. I see people watching
my
response without my knowing it. Far from frivinga wedge between
people , betwen
beleivers and governing bodes it apears my experience and my response
are doing
something else. I know of three people who have enrolled as Bahai's
because of
my experience. I know of at least a dozen more, previously unknown to
me who
have been uninvolved or marginally involved in the community but who
have come
out of the wood work and want to engage the spiritual struggle to
transform
themsleves and offer hope and redemption to the world. That is the
message of
my case. If it were in my power that is the message I would offer to
you my
friends in your journey to the land of the Most Holy.
warmest regards,
Terry Culhane