He is God, not the House

On 1 August, a talk by Peter Khan, member of the House of Justice, appeared on the blog "Reflections on teaching the Baha'i Faith". The talk is entitled "Reflections on the Ridvan 2009 message" and was apparently given on 3 July 2009. Peter devotes the talk to two issues he labels: the significance of Baha'i activity, and the question of change in religion.

In the first section, Peter dwells at length on what he argues are "two processes at work in the world today, a process of decline in the quality of life, and a growth in positive elements...". Relying on passages from the Guardian, he identifies the 'correct' Baha'i response to the declining process - that it is inevitable and that it will be severe and protracted, and end in "barbarism, chaos, and ultimate extinction" (World Order, p187). Peter then explains the role of religion in all this: that the process is caused by the decline in religion. He quotes Baha'u'llah in support: "Should the lamp of religion be obscured, chaos and confusion will ensue..." (Tablets, p125).

Peter explains that the purpose of the Ridvan message, and indeed that of Baha'u'llah, is to free the world from this oppressive downward spiral, by spreading the news of Baha'u'llah's coming. He gives several examples of this oppression: the rise of religious extremism and authoritarianism in religious leaders; the fomenting of hatred and division in the world; the search for instant solutions; indulging in extreme behaviour such as with drugs; and the worship of idols, as instanced in Michael Jackson's death. He argues that the answer is not to get depressed but to devote oneself to spreading the Faith, as stated in the 2009 Ridvan message. What the Baha'is are doing is building a new world civilisation. The civilisation we exist in today is like the Roman Empire, which took 400 years to decline and fall. He outlines what he believes are the essential features of this new civilisation - individual and community worship; application of divine teachings to daily life; altruism and the transmission of values to new generations - and argues that these are all met by the "elements of the core activities of the Five Year Plan".

The second section of the talk is a defence of how change in religion is legitimate, based on the fact that religions must evolve. This changing process produces division because some believers want change and others don't. This division has appeared in response to the Five Year Plan framework that the House of Justice has developed - "...the House of Justice in 1996 began a process of quite significant change and that change is a test to some sincere and devoted believers" - but if the believers would understand that change is natural, they will go along with what the House asks of them. In this spirit, Peter ends with a general, rousing appeal:

"The solution is no more and no less than unreserved acceptance of whatever the central authority of the Cause, in this case the Universal House of Justice decrees. If we would hold to that... we are safe. Nothing can trouble us, we are in an impregnable stronghold, and we would become part of this massive movement of humanity to rescue the world from the perilous disorder, the intense suffering of the declining process and to usher in the ordained new world civilization in the Golden Age of the Cause."

So that's it: the world is in dire straits and the answer is to do what the House tells you to. This is what will "rescue the world from perilous disorder". I was shocked mightly when I read this passage, particularly by the language Peter uses, for it appears to conflate the House of Justice with Baha'u'llah. The concepts of being safe and in a stronghold are used in the Arabic Hidden Words; they relate to the manifestation, not the House of Justice.

"9. O son of being! My love is My stronghold; he that entereth therein is safe and secure, and he that turneth away shall surely stray and perish."

It astonishes me that Peter Khan would openly make such a claim for the House of Justice. He refers to idols in his speech but seems completely unaware of the idolatrous nature of this claim. Only a power that transcends physical existence can provide safety and act as a stronghold, for all else is subject to the contingencies of physical existence. The House of Justice is as powerless as everyone else is.

To illustrate this, I challenge Peter Khan to answer the following question, which Baha'u'llah asks of another, with respect to the House of Justice:

"Say: O people! We shall put to you a question in all truthfulness, taking God for a witness between you and Us. He, verily, is the Defender of the righteous. Appear, then, before His Throne of glory and make reply with justice and fair-mindedness. Is it God Who is potent to achieve His purpose, or is it ye who enjoy such authority? Is it He Who is truly unconstrained, as ye imply when ye say that He doeth what He pleaseth and shall not be asked of His doings, or is it ye who wield such power, and who merely make such assertions out of blind imitation, as did your forebears at the appearance of every other Messenger of God?" Suriy-i-Haykal para 58

This is my question to Peter Khan before the Throne of glory: "Is it God Who is potent to achieve His purpose, or is it [the House of Justice] that enjoy[s] such authority? Is it He Who is truly unconstrained, as ye imply when ye say that He doeth what He pleaseth and shall not be asked of His doings, or is it [the House of Justice] who wield[s] such power, and who merely make[s] such assertions out of blind imitation, as did your forebears at the appearance of every other Messenger of God?" That is my question to Peter Khan. If you believe, as you claim, that God does as He pleases and is unconstrained, then why don't you say to the believers that the answer is to turn to God/Baha'u'llah? Why don't you remind them that God is their safety and stronghold, the healer of all their ills? Does the House of Justice have the power to "quickeneth the world of being and reneweth the temples of all created things", or is that the power of the Word of God? Is the House really the central authority of the Cause or is it Baha'u'llah?

Peter appears to have missed the central point in the Baha'i concept that today is the Day of God. It means that today is the appearance of the principle that He is God, and the consquences are that anyone who comes in cooee of that station does so at their very grave peril. It's Peter's job to tell the believers "to put thy trust in Me" - that is, Baha'u'llah - "and not in thyself" - that is, not in the House of Justice. Why? Because "I desire to be loved alone and above all that is" (AHW 8), including the community's central administrative authority.

"Say: This is the Day of God, the Day on which naught shall be mentioned save His own Self, the omnipotent Protector of all worlds." (Kitab-i-Aqdas, para 167)

History and the Iqan

I finished reading the Iqan for the umteenth time a few weeks back. When I first read it three decades ago, I couldn't understand a word of it. Now when I read it, mostly I see that Baha'u'llah is describing the Baha'is. It rolls through my mind that when the Baha'is read the Iqan – if they ever do – they think it refers to the Muslims, Christians and Jews – after all, those are the people Baha'u'llah actually names, isn't it? And for ages, I read the Iqan like that too. But now, I recognise that Baha'u'llah is pointing the finger at the Baha'is as much as he is the people of other Books.

The Iqan gives us a cosmic history of religion. It tells us the history of religion from the point of view of God. And, from that vantage point, it explains to us what that history is from two points of view: from the point of view of those in the spiritual world and from the point of view of those in the physical world. To take a simple example, Christ was crucified, but how was that physical event interpreted by God and those in the highest Kingdom? Baha'u'llah tells us that during Christ's interrogation, he tried to open the eyes of onlookers to the spiritual reality before them by saying "Beholdest thou not the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and might?" Baha'u'llah explains:

"Finally, an accursed of God arose and, approaching Jesus, adjured Him saying: 'Didst thou not claim to be the Divine Messiah? Didst thou not say, "I am the King of Kings, My word is the Word of God, and I am the breaker of the Sabbath day?"' Thereupon Jesus lifted up His head and said: 'Beholdest thou not the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and might?' These were His words, and yet consider how to outward seeming He was devoid of all power except that inner power which was of God and which had encompassed all that is in heaven and on earth.' (Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 133)

And so the point Baha'u'llah is making is that although in the physical world Christ was being interrogated and his life was in danger, the spiritual reality was that he wielded unlimited power. He just chose not to use it. There were two narratives going on, which were the opposite of each other. In the physical narrative, Christ was powerless; in the spiritual narrative, Christ was all-powerful. And throughout the Iqan, Baha'u'llah is telling us this double story. We tell a story about past events in this world – we call it history - but there is a complementary cosmic story told in the highest Kingdom and it is quite different.

Like it or lump it, the Baha'is are a part of the cosmic history that Baha'u'llah has introduced to humanity in the Iqan. Baha'u'llah discusses in the Iqan how this cosmic history begins in the beginning that has no beginning and ends in the end that has no end. The Baha'is don't think of the Baha'i revelation as being a part of it. But if that was the case, then cosmic history would have to end with the appearance of the Bab. The Baha'i revelation is a part of cosmic history and the consequences of that are a complex issue indeed.

Perhaps I haven't quite got the Baha'i position right here. Baha'is are willing to see themselves as a part of cosmic history, but only on the right side of it. They are not willing to see themselves as the baddies. The baddies who persecute the manifestations are the Muslims, Christians and Jews – but not the Baha'is. Baha'is are the victims; they are on the side of the manifestations; they are the ones who suffer and are martyred for the manifestations who appear in the world unrecognised. The logical problem with this assumption is that Jews, Christians and Muslims have all suffered and been martyred in the Cause of new manifestations. There were Jewish, Christian and Muslim martyrs in previous Days of Resurrection when God renewed his religion. But those people of the Book ended up persecuting future manifestations. This is one of the central themes of the cosmic story that Baha'u'llah tells, that just because you call yourself Jewish, Christian, or Muslim doesn't mean you have not persecuted God, doesn't mean you are on the side of right. Why do Baha'is imagine themselves to be immune from this cycle?

The answer is infallibility. If the House of Justice is infallible, it will not persecute the next manifestation. The effect of this assumption of infallibility is to rule the Baha'is out of the cosmic story as persecutors and allow only for them to be the persecuted. In the Baha'i world view, only Jews, Christians and Muslims can be on the wrong side of cosmic history. I suggest that this highly selective and self-serving reading of the Iqan is one important reason why the Baha'is do not take a lot of notice of the Iqan. The book makes statements that leave Baha'is uncomfortable; for example:

"Likewise, in the verse concerning the 'Spirit,' He saith: 'And they will ask Thee of the Spirit. Say, "the Spirit proceedeth at My Lord's command."'[Qur'an 17:85] As soon as Muhammad's answer was given, they all clamorously protested, saying: 'Lo! an ignorant man who knoweth not what the Spirit is, calleth Himself the Revealer of divine Knowledge!' And now behold the divines of the age who, because of their being honoured by His name, and finding that their fathers have acknowledged His Revelation, have blindly submitted to His truth. Observe, were this people today to receive such answers in reply to such questionings, they would unhesitatingly reject and denounce them - nay, they would again utter the self-same cavils, even as they have uttered them in this day." (Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 183)

What would the Baha'is of today say to a person who said about the spirit that it proceeds at the Lord's command? Well, they might say that the spirit proceeds at the House of Justice's command! And they'd denounce the person for laying claim to any knowledge or experience of the spirit independent of the House of Justice, for all spirit is confined to that institution and its global teaching campaign - in the same way, for example, that bringing ourselves to account each day is asking ourselves what we're doing to support those two things.

But in any case, the point in the quote from the Iqan is that the divines were believers because their ancestors were believers and, therefore, only blindly obeyed their religion, despite being considered experts in the manifestation they claimed to adhere to. Why can't the Baha'is be guilty of this? Why can't this be true of those who are held up as leaders in the Baha'i community? This is an example of why a close reading of the Iqan is an awkward thing for Baha'is, why they don't do it and, when they do, they talk in general terms and point the finger at members of previous religions, but never apply the principles and lessons in the book to themselves.

But much as the Baha'is like to think of themselves as paragons of virtue, this myth cannot go on forever. The cosmic story that Baha'u'llah outlines in the Iqan is higher than any of us on this earth, including the House of Justice, and it will separate those who truly believe from those who blindly submit. One of the reasons I am bringing this subject up is that, to my mind, the Baha'i community is completely lost. The global campaign that the House of Justice is running, and that sporned 40 regional conferences, is an exercise in hysteria, vain imaginings and idle fancies. The Baha'i community has lost its way. And the reason this has happened is because of the infallibility fallacy.

I suggest that a good way to understand what's happened to the community is to see it in the context Baha'u'llah lays out for us in the Iqan. He tells us that manifestations come, that a few will believe but most, following their religious leaders, will not believe and will persecute. We also know that the followers of that same religion will play out the same game 1000 years later when the next manifestion comes. The Baha'is are no different. It took less than 20 years for the Babis to go off the rails, why do the Baha'is imagine themselves to be still on track 100 or so years later? I think it's time to start telling ourselves different stories – not stories about how it'll turn out all right on the night because the House of Justice is infallible, but stories about how we're doing as a community against the measures Baha'u'llah gives us in the Iqan such as:
-- Have we blindly submitted to our religious leaders instead of reading scripture for ourselves and coming to our own understanding of it?
-- Do we take seriously the imperative requirement that we have a pure heart, as outlined in the tablet of the true seeker?

Baha'is are indoctrinated to believe that their history is encapsulated in the Dawn-breakers. And although some aspect of Baha'i history is told there, we are also a part of a much larger history that Baha'u'llah outlines in the Iqan. We need to widen our horizons and see ourselves as part of a cosmic story that stretches over revelations. Each community will ultimately become divided as each new manifestation appears. We cannot afford to imagine that just because we call ourselves 'Baha'is' we are on the side of right, that we would not persecute a person who one day came among us and tried to make new laws that overrode those of Baha'u'llah. What would you do to such a person? One day such a person will come – although not in our lifetimes – but what would you think of him/her? Would you investigate openly for yourself, or take the easy road and just follow those who told you s/he was a heretic?

The principle of virtues

Sometime back, I was raving on to Steve about a passage from Tablet to the Son, in which Baha'u'llah states what is the fundamental principle of his revelation. After reading this passage, I suddenly remembered how the Baha'is like to say that the fundamental principle of the Baha'i revelation is unity (never mind what that means). But unity isn't what Baha'u'llah identifies in this passage - he says it is virtue.

"Note that what appeared was virtues, of which all remained ignorant." para 8, Tablet of the Son

This statement comes in the middle of a fascinating passage, which most Baha'is are, unfortunately, unfamiliar with. In paragraph 6, Baha'u'llah is lamenting the fact that the world is full of people who imagine they have attained mystical insight into God and then imagine that God is like them. He prays that God might cause the people to recognise themselves, which would enable them to distinguish themselves from God. If they could distinguish God from themselves - which, presumably, would enable them to see God better - they would be able to work out the purpose behind the verses, and hence recognise each new manifestation.

"The people have been stricken with an illness... This epidemic consists in people believing that they have attained mystical insight, and then supposing that God is like them. Today, most are afflicted with this disease... Beseech God to render hearts pure and eyes sharp, so that they might perhaps recognize themselves, and distinguish between themselves and God. Thus might they discern God's purpose in the revealed verses. If the peoples had understood the divine purpose, they would not have remained veiled at the moment of revelation." (para 6)

Baha'u'llah goes on in paragraph 7 to say that the Muslims never understood their scripture and this meant that they did not recognise the Bab when he appeared in the year 60. But then he, Baha'u'llah, came and washed everyone clean in a great celestial river.

"The dust of misconceptions and the clay of illusions prevented all humankind from attaining the panorama of divine unity, until the greatest purifier arrived and washed the people with the most cleansed of celestial rivers, calling them to the radiant countenance and informing them of the good news."

This leads into the first sentence of the next paragraph (para 8), which I quoted above. "Note that what appeared was virtues, of which all remained ignorant." In other words, what appeared with Baha'u'llah was virtues. He explains that it is true that virtues were also a part of previous revelations, but they gain a new meaning when they are renewed with a new revelation. This principle applies to all concepts associated with religion. He gives the example of the concepts of "mystical insight" and "monotheism". They all gain a new meaning with each new revelation. "For if God speaks a word today that comes to be on the lips of all the people, before and after, that word will be new, if you only think about it." (para 9)
In the first sentence of paragraph 12, Baha'u'llah says that we must look at the basic principle of each revelation and not allow ourselves to be distracted over this by the opinions of those held out by the people to be wise. "One must look at the basic principle of the cause of God, not at the high or low levels of verbal insight that have been achieved among the people." And so, as stated above, Baha'u'llah clearly states that the principle that arose with the Baha'i revelation was virtues. He also tells us that the principle favoured by God in the Muhummadan revelation was the state of transcendence and abstraction.

"In the dispensations of the Qur'an and the Bayan, the divine will preferred pure transcendence and absolute sanctification. For this reason, the brilliance of these utterances has established itself and become apparent in the hearts of the believers." (para 11)

When I think about virtues, I recall that, right up into the 1990s, Baha'is would say that what believers must endeavour to do is reflect the virtues of God. I don't hear talk like that any more. It's all about unity, and that's interpreted to mean that believers must reflect the attributes of their religious leaders - good or bad - for the sake of unity. Talk about having the disease of thinking that God is like you!
I get an idea of what Baha'u'llah means by 'virtues' from the following Persian hidden word:

"O son of my handmaid! Guidance hath ever been given by words, and now it is given by deeds. Every one must show forth deeds that are pure and holy, for words are the property of all alike, whereas such deeds as these belong only to Our loved ones." (PHW 76)

As I understand it, the new principle of virtues is the death-knell for hypocrisy. That's why I think President Obama is likely to find solutions that seemed intractable to President Bush. President Bush's motive was always expediency, not virtue for virtue's sake. And he achieved nothing, for nothing is achieved without the permission of God, and God has set the standard if you want to achieve things in this day.
It may be that those with questionable motives used to achieve their goals in previous revelations, I don't know. Perhaps, back then, one could get somewhere by sheer force of will, rather than by virtue. But I understand Baha'u'llah to be saying that he has put an end to that state of things. Now, if you want to prevail, you must do the inner work. This is the fundamental flaw of the new global teaching campaign. It is run on the force of will and numbers, not on the power of virtue and quality.

Poem for Ridvan

Orange juice, ice cream, runny brie and crackers
Drop the dime into the jukebox of your spirits.

Turn the dial on Heaven, up high to nine
Pick a soulful jazz, something warm for the spirit.

Let it dance and chime and swing between stars
Sweet pathos mixed with tango, cherry and spirit.

O Zaynab, sing softly the song of his pain
Like the charmer, in trance, draws out snake spirit.

Pirouette on the sigh gathered up from his cares
Spin him free with gentle tease and ease of spirit.

Beyond right and wrong, and lost to time
His eternal song in another’s tune and spirit.

World’s tacky nature-picture hung too long
Shatters into dust-settled dreams of tranquil spirit.

Copyright Alison Marshall 2009

A conversation in the next world

Last night, I visited in a dream a woman who lived in the next world. She lived in a house that was high up a hill so steep it was like a cliff. It had windows all along the front and there was a wonderful view out onto the valley. When I was talking to her, I felt like I knew her well, but now I can't recall why I thought that. Aware that I had found myself in the next world, I took the opportunity to ask her some questions about it. To my amazement, she gave me answers and I understood them. I remember thinking that it really helped to actually be in the next world with her, so I could experience what she talking about. She knew I was a visitor from the physical world; she seemed a bit on guard because of that. But do you think I can remember now what we discussed? Not much at all! I'm disappointed about that. I remember waking up in my body and thinking 'Gee, I've just been chatting to a woman in the next world', and realising that my recall of the experience was fading fast and there was nothing I could do about it.

I do recall gaining the general sense from her answers that the next world was like this one. After all, I was surrounded by this woman's house, with its view and ordinary things you see here everyday. Also, just as we live here with ourselves, we live there with ourselves, so if we don't like living with ourselves, then we've got a problem. My final question before I woke up - and this one I do remember - was whether she experienced the rotation of night and day like we do - whether there was something in her world that generated the night and day pattern. She said that I was thinking from the point of view of someone who lived in the physical world. I was a little put out at this, for I was trying my hardest not to assume any concepts from the physical world knowing that none really applied. She could have just said 'No, there's nothing like that here.' I woke up after that. I must have disappeared from her presence all of a sudden.

I don't reguarly have dreams like that. I expect it was sparked from reading "Walking in Light", which is all talk about people in the next world and what it's like to live there.

Meditation on the death of my mother

I am leaving the world of reason. Already, I can see its horizon behind me. I can see the hopes and dreams I pinned on it - the hope to change the world, the hope to change the Baha'i community, the hope to find love, the hope to find a place of work and the hope to study - all subverted. Baha'u'llah says we are to detach from the world and live in his sanctuary of peace. I am on my way, even though I strain to pray, to meet him in his paradise. I can barely get myself out of bed sometimes, much less find it in me to reach out to him. I ask him for his grace and favour but feel a fraud. What right have I to ask for that?

You are with him now. Just last week, we were listening to this music together; now I listen to it here and you listen to it there, with him. What's he like to live with, that Big B? I've been trying to find a place with him for 10 years and still can't seem to settle down there. But lucky you, who've flown away and are lodged there for good. I know you'll like it there, mama. You were already there before you went. You left us to squabble over your body, but I didn't play. I know you are not your body and I let Jesus have the last say: let the dead bury the dead. Let that one control your body and your memory; one day he'll wake up and find your chalk bones have taken the shape of a dog. He stopped me grieving for you mama, but now that the funeral is over and the relatives are gone, I can get back to it. I can cry again.

My hair is falling out; you saw my half-bald head staring at you in your last days. Yesterday, though, I realised that I am growing a new adornment for my new world. In a couple of weeks, I will be 50 and 9 years expelled. I can't remember now what it was I was expelled from.

(My mother died on 10 March, at 2.00pm.)

The knower as an artist, revisited

About 10 days ago, I began a new course of study, which will last for four months. Last year, I took some books out of the library about writing fiction. I got to thinking about it because I loved watching movies so much, and I wondered how stories were dreamed up and written. When I read the books, I didn't think that I would consider trying it myself. But by the end of the year, I had made some fundamental shift within, and opened up to the possibility. As it turned out, I noticed an advertisement in a magazine for an online course in fiction writing, and after looking into it, I realised it was just what I wanted and needed. So I here I am, surrounded and committed.

Despite my initial apprehension, by the time the course began in mid-February, I couldn't stop thinking about it, I was so excited. And the first week and a half have not disappointed. The book used as a textbook for the course is Janet Burroway's Writing fiction. From reading that, I was introduced to some amazing things that I never realised had anything to do with writing fiction. She said things like that stories do not come out of ideas but rather out of images and obsessions. And she said things like that

"Fiction is written not so much to inform as to find out, and if you force yourself into a mode of informing when you haven't yet found out, you're likely to end up pontificating or lying some other way." (p5)

Well, of course, when I read this, I could see how it related to what the Baha'is are doing with telling people about the Baha'i revelation. The Baha'is are completely given over to 'informing' and not 'finding out' and end up 'pontificating'. You see, the principle applies across the board. Sometimes, of course, it is appropriate to pontificate, such as in some teaching situations. But when it comes to things like fiction and revelations - hey, what's the difference, in that both are founded on stories; it's just that revelations are divine stories and fiction is made of human-made stories - then pontificating isn't going to get you very far.

I keep thinking about this. We know that the Baha'i community is stuck in a Shoghi Effendi time warp. But what does that mean on the ground? I think about the fact that kids these days are brought up with television and movies and video games and the internet; in other words, they are surrounded by visual media, which means that if you want a way in, then you have to get in with stories, not so much with ideas - and especially not by pontificating about one's ideas. Pontificating was more acceptable back in the Guardian's time. Important men who were considered experts got up and gave speeches. Baha'is were encouraged to give speeches - and people shared their ideas, political ideas, human rights ideas, gender equality ideas, economic ideas, sociological ideas, historical ideas. But I think people these days are much more sceptical of talking heads and take what they say with a grain of salt, especially young people.

Take for example, the huge success of the movie Slumdog Millionnaire, an indie movie that came out of nowhere to steal the hearts of everyone even over the blockbuster favourites. The movie has many messages in it that Baha'is would claim to teach - the triumphing of a young man who, unlike his brother, refuses to allow himself to be corrupted, and who remains faithful to love, despite extraordinary adversity; the highlighting of the plight of the poor; the power of virtues like truthfulness; the power of unity, in this case, through the mass support the young man received from the population, which was facilitated by mass media. In short, it is a very moral story. And look where it went in the end, to the top. But it doesn't achieve this by allowing itself to pontificate.

And this is the lesson I think the Baha'is need to take on board. There's no gaining mass popularity like that using tools such as Anna's Presentation, which do nothing but pontificate. I had to laugh when I read the following passage from Robert Olen Butler's famous book about writing fiction From where you dream:

"There's an interesting precedent for this idea - and what I'm about to observe has no intended religious message. A very influential person in Western and world culture taught almost exclusively in one way: only in parable, by telling stories. 'Without a parable he spake not to them.' He asked questions similar to the ones I suggested artists ask: What is the abiding universal human condition? What is this all about here on planet Earth? And his answer was, There was a guy who owned a vineyard and he had a son ... and so forth. He told stories." (pp12-13)

Now, I suppose, I can hear my detractors saying that Baha'u'llah came to tell it to us straight and not in parables like Jesus did. But that's beside the point. We can't let that be an excuse not to use stories ourselves. In any case, Baha'u'llah told many stories too - just look at the two Tablets of the Holy Mariner, for instance.

I am reminded of a young Baha'i woman who came to town (yes, a story) and who by sheer coincidence knew a guy who was a presenter for the local television channel. When he found out she was a Baha'i, he suggested she come on the programme so that she could tell him about what that meant for her. I sat down in great anticipation of what she would say. And so he introduced her and asked her what being a Baha'i was all about. Now, I am the first to own that such a question put to me on television would strike me dumb with terror, and it clearly did her because there was this awkward silence in which it was clear her mind when blank and after a while she managed to say something to the effect that Baha'is believed in unity. It was excrutiating, and it didn't take long for the presenter to realise that he wasn't going to get much more out her and so the interview ended not long after it started. I felt very sorry for her; and I don't want to claim that I'd be any better if I had a TV camera pointed at me. (Perhaps I have to explain here that, culturally, Kiwis are a reserved lot.) But I think that what became clear in that moment was that this woman couldn't access her own story about being a Baha'i.

When all said and done, what can we actually say about being Baha'i? It isn't any one thing; what each of us have is a set of experiences, many very painful, that we've lived through with Baha'u'llah as a guide and a help in one way or another. One person will tell you he came to them in a dream in which he protected them from a rioting crowd, and another will tell you that they were taken up directly in his rocket, straight from the launch pad; another will tell you that a couple of freaky things happened one after the other while they were investigating the faith and this confirmed for them that Baha'u'llah must be the Man; and still others will say how much they liked this idea and that one, and so on it goes. The Faith isn't any one thing - it isn't the set of ideas summarised in Anna's Presentation - it's in one important sense the millions of stories people tell about their encounters with Providence.

But the sad thing about the woman put on the spot in front of television cameras, was that, at that moment, she couldn't access her story - and that's because she was estranged from it. She felt like she had to tell the story she'd been told by others - 'Ah, yeah, the faith is about unity'. But I'll bet you anything the Faith isn't about unity for her. And so what I'm saying is that if we want the success of Slumdog, we need to access the real stories of Baha'is - not the 'unity' ones, the ones that we're not allowed to tell, but which are true. The ones that don't pontificate or lie in some other way.