Using wisdom in teaching the Cause

30 June 1993

To an individual Baha’i

Dear Baha’i Friend,

The Universal House of Justice received on ... your letter concerning the teaching activities in---, and we have been asked to convey the following response to you...

It is understandable that you feel concern about methods of teaching which apply pressure to people to declare their Faith in Bahá'u'lláh, or which register as believers those who apparently have no real knowledge of the Faith or its Message. It troubles you that such methods of teaching seem to be sanctioned by the institutions of the Faith in . . . and that your remonstrances have met with no satisfying response from those institutions.

The teaching of the Cause has always called for wisdom, devotion, enthusiasm, purity of intention and eloquence of speech. Like other human beings, Baha’is tend to go to extremes, and too few people bring the proper balance to the way they act. This is particularly true in the teaching of the Faith. At one extreme are those who are so on fire with love for the Faith and with awareness of the desperate need of the people for its healing message, that they overstep the bounds of wisdom and discretion and stray into the area of proselytizing. At the other extreme are those who are so gentle in their approach and so concerned never to arouse an adverse reaction that they fail to convey the enormous importance of the Cause or to convince their hearers; for if the messenger is not enthusiastic, how can he convey enthusiasm to others? The first extreme leads to misrepresentation of the teachings and causes disillusionment; the second results in the stagnation of the community and its failure to fulfill its fundamental duty of conveying this life-giving message to the world.

Guidance on membership by Bahá'ís in the organization Amnesty International

14 February 1993 

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has received your letter of 4 January 1992 seeking guidance on membership by Bahá'ís in the organization Amnesty International. We have been instructed to provide the following reply.

The House of Justice warmly acknowledges your devoted work with the organization since becoming a member in 1981, and it can appreciate your apprehension over learning in a discussion with another Bahá'í that membership by Bahá'ís in Amnesty International is not permitted. There is no question as to the merits and great services rendered by Amnesty International, nor of the parallels between a number of its goals and those of the Bahá'í Faith. However, problems could arise if you, as a member of the organization, were called upon to undertake actions which would be politically hazardous to Bahá'ís residing in other lands, or which conflict with Bahá'í principles.

As you point out, Amnesty International, from its own viewpoint, is a non-political organization; however, its definition of "politics" is different from that used in the context of Bahá'í teachings. In addition, Amnesty International states that it is opposed to the death penalty in all cases and without reservation, while the law of Bahá'u'lláh expressed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is that the death penalty is applicable for murder and arson under certain circumstances.

Even though it is not appropriate for Bahá'ís to become members of Amnesty International, its humanitarian aspects make it possible for Bahá'ís to have friendly relationships with the organization. Thus, Bahá'ís are encouraged to feel free to collaborate as individuals in certain Amnesty International's projects, while retaining the right to abstain from participation in actions which could conflict with Bahá'í principles.

Diacritics and meaning of "Self-subsisting"

21 January 1993

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

Your letters of 17 and 23 December have been received at the Bahá'í World Centre, and we are to provide the following response.

Although it appreciates your desire to make the Writings more accessible, the Universal House of Justice does not feel that it would be justified for your pamphlet to appear without the use of diacritical markings; nor would it be appropriate for you to change the form of word endings to make the style accord with modern usage. There are several reasons for this.

You should be aware that the system adopted by the Guardian is such that anyone familiar with the original languages (e.g., Arabic or Persian) can immediately tell exactly which word has been transliterated. Moreover, by adopting a style somewhat removed from everyday discourse, it was possible for Shoghi Effendi to capture something of the allusive, poetic, and highly metaphorical nature of the original languages without its seeming ridiculous. In any case, although the language may appear archaic at first glance -- because of the word endings, obsolete contractions and other incidental features -- in actuality the language of the Bahá'í Writings is indeed far closer to everyday English than the authorized version of the Bible which millions of English-speaking Christians are able to read with understanding even though many of the English words in the Bible have disappeared from the language or have taken on completely different meanings.

In your second letter, you have stated that the term "self-subsisting", which Bahá'u'lláh often uses to characterize God, "means nothing" in the English language. It is likely that this term signifies in some way a basic concept of the Faith; namely, that creation is an emanation from God, without Whose continuing bounty and grace it would cease to exist. The term thus underscores the immense contrast between our reality, which is related to the contingent world, and His reality which is independent of any cause and which entirely transcends the world of being. Indeed, the point is that He is the Cause of being itself. There is a way to deduce such a meaning, however, solely from the common meaning of the words. According to its primary dictionary definition, "to subsist" means to have existence, to persist or continue. The addition of "self" makes it reflexive. Knowing just these two things, can we not then say that if God is self-subsisting it means that there is nothing other than Himself upon which He depends for His continuing existence? In other words, He exists in and of Himself without being dependent on any other cause: He has no creator and there is nothing prior to Him.