Date: 4 Jan 93 23:10:46
Distribution: world
From: johnb@uafphpl.uark.edu (John Bromberek)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Organization: <none>
Subject: Schisms

[Due to a couple of mishaps and negligence on my part John's article
was greatly delayed; my apologies to him.--mmt]

   I guess, it was all my fault.  I was the one who posted the press
release that included the paragraph about the lack of schisms in the
Baha'i Faith.  It looked like an innocent-enough statement to me.

   So, I guess I ought to say something about it.

   Others who have the ready resources to speak directly about the
Covenant of Baha'u'llah I am sure will want to post their comments
here for our benefit.  I'd just like to say a few things about the
relevant history.
 
   I am reminded of a phrase I saw somewhere--can't remember the 
source--"the Baha'i Faith does not shelter egotistical personalities".  

   This doesn't mean that we are at all lacking in ego problems, only
that the structure of the Baha'i administration does not provide any
comfortable niche for a person who has a yearning for personal power
or self-aggrandizement.

   Extraordinarily egotistical people will either be modified by the
system, or they will leave it.  There is no comfort to be found within
it.
 
   The several historical instances of attempted schism within the 
Baha'i Faith have always centered upon individuals with such problems.  
Doctrinal splits, aside from questions of successorship, have played 
little role in these excursions, albeit there is sometimes greater 
emphasis among the schismatics on occult and psychic fancies.

   Obviously, it is advantageous to retain as much of the teachings as
possible, while rejecting current authority.  After all, the basis of
the attempt to acquire personal power must necessarily be the
preeminent character of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.  Without that,
the leader would have little to offer any prospective followers.

   What may additionally be available to their followers, however, is
the eventual possibility of power for themselves.  Especially so, for
those who get in on the ground floor.

   It's a little like one of those con-games in which someone sets up
a pyramidal organization wherein money flows from everyone to the top
through successive lower levels; the higher you can rise in the
organization, the more money you can rake off from those below you.
 
   While it is true that this faith is only 129 years old, and it
therefore may not yet be possible to adequately judged it from an 
historical perspective, it is also true that the most serious threats 
to it's unity already reside in the distant past. 
 
   There was no period more precarious than that which commenced 100 
years ago, upon the passing of Baha'u'llah.  But, the bedrock of His 
Covenant sustained the faith through all the attacks which arose from 
within it at that time.  And as each of the instigators of disunity 
died off in succession, their small bands of hangers-on split into ever 
smaller factions, quarreling among themselves, until they too 
disappeared from the scene. 

   A new wave of egos emerged upon the passing of `Abdu'l-Baha; but
the strength of his Will and Testament likewise saw the faith through
those times, with the same results for the break-away bands.  Now,
they, and their followers, are also mostly dead, along with their
aspirations.

   They created organizations that were designed to feed their egos.
When their bodies died their egos also disappeared, leaving no single
center to hold the organizations together.
 
   I think we are safe here in ignoring all these early movements. 
There is no need to recount any of the details of their rise, decline 
and dismal failure.  At this remove they exist only as historical 
curiosities. 

   To show the pattern that repeats in all these instances, it should
suffice to observe how the same feeble drama is playing itself out in
the case of the present-day hopeful usurpers who rose up at the time
of the passing of Shoghi Effendi.

   So, begging your indulgence, I would like to quote here briefly,
concerning the followers, and descendants, of Charles Mason Remey,
from the _Bibliography of English-Language Works on the Babi and
Baha'i Faiths: 1844-1985_, compiled by William Collins, and published
in 1990. The following account can be found on page 295:
 
        Charles Mason Remey was a Hand of the Cause of God and was 
     appointed president of the International Baha'i Council by 
     Shoghi Effendi.  When Shoghi Effendi died in 1957 without 
     leaving a Will or naming a successor, Remey declared himself 
     in 1960 to be the `hereditary Guardian' on the basis of his 
     position as president of the Council.  Remey was cut off from 
     all his former positions and became the leader of a small 
     group known as `Baha'is Under the Hereditary Guardianship'.  
     One of Remey's early supporters was Mary Magdalen Wilkin.  
     Joel Marangella, one of Remey's closest associates, was named 
     by Remey in 1964 as the president of a new International 
     Baha'i Council; in 1969, more than four years before Remey's 
     death, Marangella proclaimed himself `third Guardian'.  The 
     Remeyites have broken into a number of groups:
 
     (a) The `Orthodox Baha'i Faith, Mother Baha'i Council' 
     composed of those who followed Joel B. Marangella as `third 
     Guardian'.
 
     (b) A small group following Donald Harvey as Marangella's 
     rival in claiming to be the `third Guardian' based upon 
     written documents from Remey stating that Harvey was to 
     succeed him.  Francis C. Spataro operates the Charles Mason 
     Remey Society, composed of Harvey supporters... 
     
     (c) The `Orthodox Baha'i Faith under the Regency' organized by 
     Reginald King, who claimed to be regent for an as yet unnamed 
     descendent of Baha'u'llah who would become the `second 
     Guardian'.  This group now rejects Remey and those who claim 
     guardianship in succession to him.
 
     (d) The `Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant', a 
     group founded by Leland Jensen.... Jensen claims that Davidic 
     kingship was inherited by Baha'u'llah, passed to `Abdu'l-Baha, 
     who then passed the kingship to Charles Mason Remey by making 
     Remey an `adopted son'.  The kingship was then passed again to 
     Remey's adopted son, Joseph Pepe Remey.  Jensen claims to be 
     Joshua (spoken of in Zachariah 3) and to be the `establisher 
     of the kingdom of Baha'u'llah', as well as the fulfiller of 
     American Indian prophecies.  Supporters include Roger Caryl.
 
   And so it goes.

   Some of you may remember Jensen as the fellow who garnered national
press coverage by predicting that nuclear war would break out (or
would be caused by some event that would take place) at 7:55pm, April
29th, 1980.

   His followers headed for shelters in the Rocky Mountains that day.
But no one else was much bothered by either the prediction, or the
outcome.
 
   The point is that, while there will probably always remain some
megalomaniacal personalities on this planet, the foundation of the
Baha'i Faith is now so firmly established in the Universal House of
Justice, that it is inconceivable to my puny mind how anyone could
possibly come up with a way of henceforth creating a viable schism (by
which I mean one which will outlast this pattern of generational die-
off).

   From this vantage point, I don't think that it is unreasonable to
suggest that, inasmuch as there has not yet been a successful attempt
to create a lasting division in the Baha'i community, it is highly
unlikely that anyone ever will find a way to do so.
 
John Bromberek
johnb@uafphpl.uark.edu [University of Arkansas--Physical Plant,
Fayetteville] 




Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai