Udo Schaefer & Peter Khan about Baha'i Scholarship and why "a number of very capable and sincere people severed their connection with the Faith"

I know only too well whereof I speak. Over a period of five decades, I have had repeated, painful experiences with the anti-intellectualism in our community.

This is obviously a world-wide phenomenon in Baha'i communities. Peter Khan writes "... I saw around me ... in both Australia and the United States, a number of very capable and sincere people who severed their connection with the Faith because of their exposure to this narrow line of thinking. Even here in the Holy Land, one does occasionally see this line of thinking appearing in disguise from time to time ... We must always be on our guard against this crypto fundamentalist thinking, which can lead us into error through a narrow approach to the writings and to the centrality of the Creative word" ("Some Aspects of Baha 'i Scholarship", in The Journal of Baha'i Studies 9.4, December 1999, p. 47).

... there are Baha'is who regard the engagement in Baha'i studies as something more or less unspiritual. Sometimes those who do this work are told to "get down off their high horse". This is unacceptable.

When one reads appeals in Baha'i news magazines for the believers to “teach from the heart, to be inflamed”— as if all one has to do is to make up one’s mind and push a button — it means in plain language that we do not want discourse and rational, systematic teaching, but rather an emotional sharing of the message that appeals to feelings alone. Strangely enough, it is called “teaching work.” “What do you feel,” an institute facilitator asked the participants of a study group, after texts of Baha’u’llah had been read. She seemed to be searching for “feelings,” reminiscent of some foaming jacuzzi of emotions, into which one can let oneself drop in a state of utter relaxation, instead of thinking, which can be strenuous and exhausting. In some circles, critical thinking is equated with lacking faith, with being spiritually weak. Critical discourse is misinterpreted as “idle disputation.”

... how the Faith can be defended against criticism and attacks, when rational thinking and argument are treated with contempt.

-Loyalty to the Covenant and Critical Thought - A Commentary by Udo Schaefer