It is mandatory for the Guardian to appoint his successor

I have been thinking back to the evidentiary hearing held last January 7th in federal court in Chicago in which I represented the Orthodox Bahá'í respondents against the Wilmette NSA's unsuccessful attempt to bind the Orthodox Bahá'ís to an Injunction entered in 1966 against the long defunct NSA that had been loyal to Charles Mason Remey. For more information on that legal action, click here.

But I do not intend to discuss that legal action in this posting, except to discuss the testimony of NSA member and former Secretary, Dr. Robert Henderson, speaking on behalf of the Wilmette NSA concerning the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh.  In his direct testimony under friendly questioning by the NSA's attorney, Dr. Henderson spoke about the Bahá'í Faith, its teachings and his study of it.  I am here questioning Dr. Henderson on cross-examination about the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá and whether it was a teaching of the Bahá'í Faith that the Will and Testament anticipated a succession of Guardians:

 

Q. And did -- did not the Will & Testament anticipate a

succession or line of Guardians from one to another?

A. It didn't anticipate it. What it said was that the --

that Shoghi Effendi could appoint a Guardian within -- in his lifetime.

Q. Did it say could or did it say he should?

A. Could.

 

That was not the time or place to argue with the witness, but he got it wrong. `Abdu'l-Bahá states in the Will and Testament:

"O ye beloved of the Lord! It is incumbent upon the Guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing."

Dr. Henderson's reading of that passage is that the Guardian "could" appoint a successor. My reading of it, and of the Guardians, is that the word "incumbent" is mandatory. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the word "incumbent" means "obligatory." I think the Guardian should appoint his successor, not could.

Here is a Bahá'í who has a distinguished career as a member of the NSA, who testified about his extensive study of the Bahá'í teachings, and on a fundamental teaching of the Covenant, he was woefully ignorant. He did not know that Shoghi Effendi had an obligation to appoint his successor during his lifetime.

This ignorance of the fundamentals is widespread amongst the Bahá'ís under the jurisdiction of the Wilmette NSA. It is so embarrassing how ignorant the Bahá'ís remain about these fundamental verities of the Cause, that I would think the Wilmette NSA would want to embark on a massive education campaign to teach itself and its followers about the truth of the Bahá'í Faith.

The Orthodox Bahá'ís have recently begun participating on You Tube by posting videos, and the comments and inquiries coming in again display this appalling ignorance, in that they repeatedly say that Shoghi Effendi did not leave a Will and Testament and therefore he did not appoint his successor.

First of all, it is appalling that so many Bahá'ís have the audacity to assert and believe that Shoghi Effendi failed to abide by and to fulfill the wishes of his grandfather, who made it incumbent upon the Guardian to appoint his successor. In fact, Shoghi Effendi fulfilled all of his duties and obligations as Guardian, and all of you who suggest otherwise should be ashamed.

It is also appalling that Bahá'ís continue to insist that Shoghi Effendi should have left a Will when `Abdu'l-Bahá's instructions are clearly otherwise so that differences would not arise, as is typically the case with controversial Wills. The Guardian must appoint during his lifetime. That means, not by a Will. If `Abdu'l-Bahá intended that the Guardian should leave a Will, it would be redundant to say that he should write his Will during his lifetime since one cannot write a Will after one is dead. A Will has no effect and its provisions are unknown until death. Therefore, it is obvious that an appointment made during one's lifetime must be by means other than a Will. If it is so differences may not arise, then it is obviously supposed to be made while the Guardian is still alive so that he might resolve those differences.

Since the Orthodox Bahá'ís are going to have this conversation, like it or not as there is no lawful way for you to prevent this conversation from occurring, you would think the Bahá'ís who follow and support the Wilmette NSA would want to fully understand and to study this subject before engaging us in debate. The problem for the Wilmette NSA if they do that is, of course, they run the risk of having their members awaken to the truth of the Orthodox Bahá'ís' teachings.

By Hand of Cause Jeffrey Goldberg