December 29. On this date in 1988, the Universal House of Justice
wrote
American Bahá'ís an important and often-quoted letter about rights and
freedom of expression in the Bahá'í community, as contrasted with those
in American civil society.
The Universal House of Justice
29 December 1988
To the Followers of Bahá’u’lláh in the United States of America
Dear Bahá’í Friends,
We
have noticed with concern evidences of a confusion of attitudes among
some of the friends when they encounter difficulties in applying Bahá’í
principles to questions of the day. On the one hand, they acknowledge
their belief in Bahá’u’lláh and His teachings; on the other, they invoke
Western liberal democratic practices when actions of Bahá’í
institutions or of some of their fellow Bahá’ís do not accord with their
expectations. At the heart of this confusion are misconceptions of such
fundamental issues as individual rights and freedom of expression in
the Bahá’í community. The source of the potential difficulties of the
situation appears to us to be an inadequacy of Bahá’í perspective on the
part of both individual believers and their institutions.
Recognizing
the immense challenge you face to resolve such confusion, we pause to
reflect with you on these issues in search of a context in which
relevant fundamental questions may be discussed and understood in the
community.
The
extraordinary capacities of the American nation, as well as the superb
stewardship of the Bahá’í community within it, have repeatedly been
extolled in the writings of our Faith. In His Tablets and utterances,
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the Center of the Covenant, projected a compelling vision
of the world-embracing prospects of that richly endowed country. “The
American nation,” He averred, “is equipped and empowered to accomplish
that which will adorn the pages of history, to become the envy of the
world, and be blest in both the East and the West for the triumph of its
people.” In another assertion addressed to the Bahá’í community itself,
He uttered words of transcendent importance: “… your mission,” He
affirmed, “is unspeakably glorious. Should success crown your
enterprise, America will assuredly evolve into a center from which waves
of spiritual power will emanate, and the throne of the Kingdom of God
will, in the plenitude of its majesty and glory, be firmly established.”
Shoghi
Effendi, in various statements, celebrated the remarkable achievements
and potential glories of that specially blessed community, but was moved
to issue, in The Advent of Divine Justice, a profound warning
which is essential to a proper understanding of the relation of that
Bahá’í community to the nation from which it has sprung. “The glowing
tributes,” he solemnly wrote, “so repeatedly and deservedly paid to the
capacity, the spirit, the conduct, and the high rank, of the American
believers, both individually and as an organic community, must, under no
circumstances, be confounded with the characteristics and nature of the
people from which God has raised them up. A sharp distinction between
that community and that people must be made, and resolutely and
fearlessly upheld, if we wish to give due recognition to the transmuting
power of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, in its impact on the lives and
standards of those who have chosen to enlist under His banner.
Otherwise, the supreme and distinguishing function of His Revelation,
which is none other than the calling into being of a new race of men,
will remain wholly unrecognized and completely obscured.” It is the
far-reaching, transformative implications of this distinction which we
especially invite you to contemplate.
The
vantage point that gives us perspective and is the foundation of our
belief and actions rests on our recognition of the sovereignty of God
and our submission to His will as revealed by Bahá’u’lláh, His supreme
Manifestation for this promised Day. To accept the Prophet of God in His
time and to abide by His bidding are the two essential, inseparable
duties which each soul was created to fulfill. One exercises these twin
duties by one’s own choice, an act constituting the highest expression
of the free will with which every human being has been endowed by an
all-loving Creator.
The
vehicle in this resplendent Age for the practical fulfillment of these
duties is the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh; it is, indeed, the potent
instrument by which individual belief in Him is translated into
constructive deeds. The Covenant comprises divinely conceived
arrangements necessary to preserve the organic unity of the Cause. It
therefore engenders a motivating power which, as the beloved Master
tells us, “like unto the artery, beats and pulsates in the body of the
world.” “It is indubitably clear,” He asserts, “that the pivot of the
oneness of mankind is nothing else but the power of the Covenant.”
Through it the meaning of the Word, both in theory and practice, is made
evident in the life and work of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the appointed
Interpreter, the perfect Exemplar, the Center of the Covenant. Through
it the processes of the Administrative Order—“this unique, this wondrous
System”—are made to operate.
In
emphasizing its distinctiveness, Shoghi Effendi has pointed out that
“this Administrative Order is fundamentally different from anything that
any Prophet has previously established, inasmuch as Bahá’u’lláh has
Himself revealed its principles, established its institutions, appointed
the person to interpret His Word and conferred the necessary authority
on the body designed to supplement and apply His legislative
ordinances.” In another statement, he maintains that “It would be
utterly misleading to attempt a comparison between this unique, divinely
conceived Order and any of the diverse systems which the minds of men,
at various periods of their history, have contrived for the government
of human institutions.” “Such an attempt,” he felt, “would in itself
betray a lack of complete appreciation of the excellence of the
handiwork of its great Author.”
The
lack of such appreciation will detract from the perspective of anyone
who measures Bahá’í administrative processes against practices prevalent
in today’s society. For notwithstanding its inclination to democratic
methods in the administration of its affairs, and regardless of the
resemblance of some of its features to those of other systems, the
Administrative Order is not to be viewed merely as an improvement on
past and existing systems; it represents a departure both in origin and
in concept. “This newborn Administrative Order,” as Shoghi Effendi has
explained, “incorporates within its structure certain elements which are
to be found in each of the three recognized forms of secular
government, without being in any sense a mere replica of any one of
them, and without introducing within its machinery any of the
objectionable features which they inherently possess. It blends and
harmonizes, as no government fashioned by mortal hands has as yet
accomplished, the salutary truths which each of these systems
undoubtedly contains without vitiating the integrity of those God-given
verities on which it is ultimately founded.”
You
are, no doubt, conversant with the Guardian’s expatiations on this
theme. Why, then, this insistent emphasis? Why this repeated review of
fundamentals? This emphasis, this review, is to sound an appeal for
solid thinking, for the attainment of correct perspectives, for the
adoption of proper attitudes. And these are impossible without a deep
appreciation of Bahá’í fundamentals.
The
great emphasis on the distinctiveness of the Order of Bahá’u’lláh is
not meant to belittle existing systems of government. Indeed, they are
to be recognized as the fruit of a vast period of social evolution,
representing an advanced stage in the development of social
organization. What motivates us is the knowledge that the supreme
mission of the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, the Bearer of that Order, is,
as Shoghi Effendi pointed out, “none other but the achievement of this
organic and spiritual unity of the whole body of nations,” indicating
the “coming of age of the entire human race.” The astounding implication
of this is the near prospect of attaining an age-old hope, now made
possible at long last by the coming of Bahá’u’lláh. In practical terms,
His mission signals the advent of “an organic change in the structure of
present-day society, a change such as the world has not yet
experienced.” It is a fresh manifestation of the direct involvement of
God in history, a reassurance that His children have not been left to
drift, a sign of the outpouring of a heavenly grace that will enable all
humanity to be free at last from conflict and contention to ascend the
heights of world peace and divine civilization. Beyond all else, it is a
demonstration of that love for His children, which He knew in the depth
of His “immemorial being” and in the “ancient eternity” of His Essence,
and which caused Him to create us all. In the noblest sense, then,
attention to the requirements of His World Order is a reciprocation of
that love.
* * *
It
is this perspective that helps us to understand the question of freedom
and its place in Bahá’í thought and action. The idea and the fact of
freedom pervade all human concerns in an infinitude of notions and
modes. Freedom is indeed essential to all expressions of human life.
Freedom
of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of action are among the
freedoms which have received the ardent attention of social thinkers
across the centuries. The resulting outflow of such profound thought has
exerted a tremendous liberating influence in the shaping of modern
society. Generations of the oppressed have fought and died in the name
of freedom. Certainly the want of freedom from oppression has been a
dominant factor in the turmoil of the times: witness the plethora of
movements which have resulted in the rapid emergence of new nations in
the latter part of the twentieth century. A true reading of the
teachings of Bahá’u’lláh leaves no doubt as to the high importance of
these freedoms to constructive social processes. Consider, for instance,
Bahá’u’lláh’s proclamation to the kings and rulers. Can it not be
deduced from this alone that attainment of freedom is a significant
purpose of His Revelation? His denunciations of tyranny and His urgent
appeals on behalf of the oppressed provide unmistakable proof. But does
not the freedom foreshadowed by His Revelation imply nobler, ampler
manifestations of human achievement? Does it not indicate an organic
relationship between the internal and external realities of man such as
has not yet been attained?
In
his summary of significant Bahá’í teachings, Shoghi Effendi wrote that
Bahá’u’lláh “inculcates the principle of ‘moderation in all things’;
declares that whatsoever, be it ‘liberty, civilization and the like,’
‘passeth beyond the limits of moderation’ must ‘exercise a pernicious
influence upon men’; observes that western civilization has gravely
perturbed and alarmed the peoples of the world; and predicts that the
day is approaching when the ‘flame’ of a civilization ‘carried to
excess’ ‘will devour the cities.’”
Expounding
the theme of liberty, Bahá’u’lláh asserted that “the embodiment of
liberty and its symbol is the animal”; that “liberty causeth man to
overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his
station”; that “true liberty consisteth in man’s submission unto My
commandments.” “We approve of liberty in certain circumstances,” He
declared, “and refuse to sanction it in others.” But He gave the
assurance that, “Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto
them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain
unto perfect liberty.” And again, He said, “Mankind in its entirety must
firmly adhere to whatsoever hath been revealed and vouchsafed unto it.
Then and only then will it attain unto true liberty.”
Bahá’u’lláh’s
assertions clearly call for an examination of current assumptions.
Should liberty be as free as is supposed in contemporary Western
thought? Where does freedom limit our possibilities for progress, and
where do limits free us to thrive? What are the limits to the expansion
of freedom? For so fluid and elastic are its qualities of application
and expression that the concept of freedom in any given situation is
likely to assume a different latitude from one mind to another; these
qualities are, alas, susceptible to the employment alike of good and
evil. Is it any wonder, then, that Bahá’u’lláh exhorts us to submission
to the will of God?
Since
any constructive view of freedom implies limits, further questions are
inevitable: What are the latitudes of freedom in the Bahá’í community?
How are these to be determined? Because human beings have been created
to “carry forward an ever-advancing civilization,” the exercise of
freedom, it may be deduced, is intended to enable all to fulfill this
purpose in their individual lives and in their collective functioning as
a society. Hence whatever in principle is required to realize this
purpose gauges the latitudes or limits of freedom.
Contemplating
Bahá’u’lláh’s warning that “whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of
moderation will cease to exert a beneficial influence,” we come to
appreciate that the Administrative Order He has conceived embodies the
operating principles which are necessary to the maintenance of that
moderation which will ensure the “true liberty” of humankind. All things
considered, does the Administrative Order not appear to be the
structure of freedom for our Age? ‘Abdu’l-Bahá offers us comfort in this
thought, for He has said that “the moderate freedom which guarantees
the welfare of the world of mankind and maintains and preserves the
universal relationships is found in its fullest power and extension in
the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh.”
Within
this framework of freedom a pattern is set for institutional and
individual behavior which depends for its efficacy not so much on the
force of law, which admittedly must be respected, as on the recognition
of a mutuality of benefits, and on the spirit of cooperation maintained
by the willingness, the courage, the sense of responsibility, and the
initiative of individuals—these being expressions of their devotion and
submission to the will of God. Thus there is a balance of freedom
between the institution, whether national or local, and the individuals
who sustain its existence.
Consider,
for example, the Local Spiritual Assembly, the methods of its formation
and the role of individuals in electing it. The voter elects with the
understanding that he is free to choose without any interference
whomever his conscience prompts him to select, and he freely accepts the
authority of the outcome. In the act of voting, the individual
subscribes to a covenant by which the orderliness of society is upheld.
The Assembly has the responsibility to guide, direct and decide on
community affairs and the right to be obeyed and supported by members of
the community. The individual has the responsibility to establish and
maintain the Assembly through election, the offering of advice, moral
support and material assistance; and he has the right to be heard by it,
to receive its guidance and assistance, and to appeal from any Assembly
decision which he conscientiously feels is unjust or detrimental to the
interests of the community.
But
occupation with the mechanics of Bahá’í Administration, divorced from
the animating spirit of the Cause, leads to a distortion, to an arid
secularization foreign to the nature of the Administration. Equally
significant to the procedures for election—to further extend the
example—is the evocation of that rarefied atmosphere of prayer and
reflection, that quiet dignity of the process, devoid of nominations and
campaigning, in which the individual’s freedom to choose is limited
only by his own conscience, exercised in private in an attitude that
invites communion with the Holy Spirit. In this sphere, the elector
regards the outcome as an expression of the will of God, and those
elected as being primarily responsible to that will, not to the
constituency which elected them. An election thus conducted portrays an
aspect of that organic unity of the inner and outer realities of human
life which is necessary to the construction of a mature society in this
new Age. In no other system do individuals exercise such a breadth of
freedom in the electoral process.
* * *
The
equilibrium of responsibilities implied by all this presupposes
maturity on the part of all concerned. This maturity has an apt analogy
in adulthood in human beings. How significant is the difference between
infancy and childhood, adolescence and adulthood! In a period of history
dominated by the surging energy, the rebellious spirit and frenetic
activity of adolescence, it is difficult to grasp the distinguishing
elements of the mature society to which Bahá’u’lláh beckons all
humanity. The models of the old world order blur vision of that which
must be perceived; for these models were, in many instances, conceived
in rebellion and retain the characteristics of the revolutions peculiar
to an adolescent, albeit necessary, period in the evolution of human
society. The very philosophies which have provided the intellectual
content of such revolutions—Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Mill come readily
to mind—were inspired by protest against the oppressive conditions which
revolutions were intended to remedy.
These
characteristics are conspicuous, for example, in the inordinate
skepticism regarding authority, and consequently, in the grudging
respect which the citizens of various nations show toward their
governments; they have become pronounced in the incessant promotion of
individualism, often to the detriment of the wider interests of society.
How aptly, even after the lapse of half a century, Shoghi Effendi’s
views, as conveyed by his secretary, fit the contemporary scene: “Our
present generation, mainly due to the corruptions that have been
identified with organizations, seem to stand against any institution.
Religion as an institution is denounced. Government as an institution is
denounced. Even marriage as an institution is denounced. We Bahá’ís
should not be blinded by such prevalent notions. If such were the case,
all the divine Manifestations would not have invariably appointed
someone to succeed Them. Undoubtedly, corruptions did enter those
institutions, but these corruptions were not due to the very nature of
the institutions but to the lack of proper directions as to their powers
and nature of their perpetuation. What Bahá’u’lláh has done is not to
eliminate all institutions in the Cause but to provide the necessary
safeguards that would eliminate corruptions that caused the fall of
previous institutions. What those safeguards are is most interesting to
study and find out and also most essential to know.”
We
make these observations not to indulge in criticism of any system, but
rather to open up lines of thought, to encourage a reexamination of the
bases of modern society, and to engender a perspective for consideration
of the distinctive features of the Order of Bahá’u’lláh. What, it could
be asked, was the nature of society that gave rise to such
characteristics and such philosophies? Where have these taken mankind?
Has their employment satisfied the needs and expectations of the human
spirit? The answers to such questions could lay the ground for a
contrasting observation of the origin and nature of the characteristics
and philosophy underlying that Order.
* * *
As
to freedom of expression, a fundamental principle of the Cause, the
Administrative Order provides unique methods and channels for its
exercise and maintenance; these have been amply described in the
writings of the Faith, but they are not yet clearly understood by the
friends. For Bahá’u’lláh has extended the scope and deepened the meaning
of self-expression. In His elevation of art and of work performed in
the service of humanity to acts of worship can be discerned enormous
prospects for a new birth of expression in the civilization anticipated
by His World Order. The significance of this principle, now so greatly
amplified by the Lord of the Age, cannot be doubted; but it is in its
ramifications in speech that keen understanding is urgently needed. From
a Bahá’í point of view, the exercise of freedom of speech must
necessarily be disciplined by a profound appreciation of both the
positive and negative dimensions of freedom, on the one hand, and of
speech, on the other.
Bahá’u’lláh
warns us that “the tongue is a smoldering fire, and excess of speech a
deadly poison.” “Material fire consumeth the body,” He says in
elaborating the point, “whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both
heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst
the effects of the latter endureth a century.” In tracing the framework
of free speech, He again advises “moderation.” “Human utterance is an
essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation,”
He states, adding, “As to its influence, this is conditional upon
refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and
pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and
wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets.”
Also
relevant to what is said, and how, is when it is said. For speech, as
for so many other things, there is a season. Bahá’u’lláh reinforces this
understanding by drawing attention to the maxim that “Not everything
that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can
disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be
considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”
Speech
is a powerful phenomenon. Its freedom is both to be extolled and
feared. It calls for an acute exercise of judgment, since both the
limitation of speech and the excess of it can lead to dire consequences.
Thus there exist in the system of Bahá’u’lláh checks and balances
necessary to the beneficial uses of this freedom in the onward
development of society. A careful examination of the principles of
Bahá’í consultation and the formal and informal arrangements for
employing them offer new insights into the dynamics of freedom of
expression.
As
it is beyond the scope of this letter to expatiate upon these
principles, let it suffice to recall briefly certain of the requisites
of consultation, particularly for those who serve on Spiritual
Assemblies. Love and harmony, purity of motive, humility and lowliness
amongst the friends, patience and long-suffering in difficulties—these
inform the attitude with which they proceed “with the utmost devotion,
courtesy, dignity, care and moderation to express their views,” each
using “perfect liberty” both in so doing and in “unveiling the proof of
his demonstration.” “If another contradicts him, he must not become
excited because if there be no investigation or verification of
questions and matters, the agreeable view will not be discovered neither
understood.” “The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the
clash of differing opinions.” If unanimity is not subsequently achieved,
decisions are arrived at by majority vote.
Once
a decision has been reached, all members of the consultative body,
having had the opportunity fully to state their views, agree
wholeheartedly to support the outcome. What if the minority view is
right? “If they agree upon a subject,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has explained, “even
though it be wrong, it is better than to disagree and be in the right,
for this difference will produce the demolition of the divine
foundation. Though one of the parties may be in the right and they
disagree, that will be the cause of a thousand wrongs, but if they agree
and both parties are in the wrong, as it is in unity, the truth will be
revealed and the wrong made right.” Implicit in this approach to the
social utility of thought is the profundity of the change in the
standard of public discussion intended by Bahá’u’lláh for a mature
society.
The
qualities by which the individual can achieve the personal discipline
necessary to successful consultation find their full expression in what
Shoghi Effendi regarded as the “spirit of a true Bahá’í.” Ponder, for
instance, the appealing remark addressed to your own community in one of
his earliest letters: “Nothing short of the spirit of a true Bahá’í can
hope to reconcile the principles of mercy and justice, of freedom and
submission, of the sanctity of the right of the individual and of
self-surrender, of vigilance, discretion and prudence on the one hand,
and fellowship, candor, and courage on the other.” This was an appeal to
the maturity and the distinction towards which he repeatedly directed
their thoughts.
* * *
Because
the Most Great Peace is the object of our longing, a primary effort of
the Bahá’í community is to reduce the incidence of conflict and
contention, which are categorically forbidden in the Most Holy Book.
Does this mean that one may not express critical thought? Absolutely
not. How can there be the candor called for in consultation if there is
no critical thought? How is the individual to exercise his
responsibilities to the Cause, if he is not allowed the freedom to
express his views? Has Shoghi Effendi not stated that “at the very root
of the Cause lies the principle of the undoubted right of the individual
to self-expression, his freedom to declare his conscience and set forth
his views”?
The
Administrative Order provides channels for expression of criticism,
acknowledging, as a matter of principle, that “it is not only the right,
but the vital responsibility of every loyal and intelligent member of
the community to offer fully and frankly, but with due respect and
consideration to the authority of the Assembly, any suggestion,
recommendation or criticism he conscientiously feels he should in order
to improve and remedy certain existing conditions or trends in his local
community.” Correspondingly, the Assembly has the duty “to give careful
consideration to any such views submitted to them.”
Apart
from the direct access which one has to an Assembly, local or national,
or to a Counselor or Auxiliary Board member, there are specific
occasions for the airing of one’s views in the community. The most
frequent of these occasions for any Bahá’í is the Nineteen Day Feast
which, “besides its social and spiritual aspects, fulfills various
administrative needs and requirements of the community, chief among them
being the need for open and constructive criticism and deliberation
regarding the state of affairs within the local Bahá’í community.” At
the same time, Shoghi Effendi’s advice, as conveyed by his secretary,
goes on to stress the point that “all criticisms and discussions of a
negative character which may result in undermining the authority of the
Assembly as a body should be strictly avoided. For otherwise the order
of the Cause itself will be endangered, and confusion and discord will
reign in the community.”
Clearly,
then, there is more to be considered than the critic’s right to
self-expression; the unifying spirit of the Cause of God must also be
preserved, the authority of its laws and ordinances safeguarded,
authority being an indispensable aspect of freedom. Motive, manner,
mode, become relevant; but there is also the matter of love: love for
one’s fellows, love for one’s community, love for one’s institutions.
The
responsibility resting on the individual to conduct himself in such a
way as to ensure the stability of society takes on elemental importance
in this context. For vital as it is to the progress of society,
criticism is a two-edged sword: it is all too often the harbinger of
conflict and contention. The balanced processes of the Administrative
Order are meant to prevent this essential activity from degenerating to
any form of dissent that breeds opposition and its dreadful schismatic
consequences. How incalculable have been the negative results of
ill-directed criticism: in the catastrophic divergences it has created
in religion, in the equally contentious factions it has spawned in
political systems, which have dignified conflict by institutionalizing
such concepts as the “loyal opposition” which attach to one or another
of the various categories of political opinion—conservative, liberal,
progressive, reactionary, and so forth.
If
Bahá’í individuals deliberately ignore the principles imbedded in the
Order which Bahá’u’lláh Himself has established to remedy divisiveness
in the human family, the Cause for which so much has been sacrificed
will surely be set back in its mission to rescue world society from
complete disintegration. May not the existence of the Covenant be
invoked again and again, so that such repetition may preserve the needed
perspective? For, in this age, the Cause of Bahá’u’lláh has been
protected against the baneful effects of the misuse of the process of
criticism; this has been done by the institution of the Covenant and by
the provision of a universal administrative system which incorporates
within itself the mechanisms for drawing out the constructive ideas of
individuals and using them for the benefit of the entire system.
Admonishing the people to uphold the unifying purpose of the Cause,
Bahá’u’lláh, in the Book of His Covenant, addresses these poignant words
to them: “Let not the means of order be made the cause of confusion and
the instrument of union an occasion for discord.” Such assertions
emphasize a crucial point; it is this: In terms of the Covenant,
dissidence is a moral and intellectual contradiction of the main
objective animating the Bahá’í community, namely, the establishment of
the unity of mankind.
* * *
We
return to the phenomenal characteristics of speech. Content, volume,
style, tact, wisdom, timeliness are among the critical factors in
determining the effects of speech for good or evil. Consequently, the
friends need ever to be conscious of the significance of this activity
which so distinguishes human beings from other forms of life, and they
must exercise it judiciously. Their efforts at such discipline will give
birth to an etiquette of expression worthy of the approaching maturity
of the human race. Just as this discipline applies to the spoken word,
it applies equally to the written word; and it profoundly affects the
operation of the press.
The
significance and role of the press in a new world system are
conspicuous in the emphasis which the Order of Bahá’u’lláh places on
accessibility to information at all levels of society. Shoghi Effendi
tells us that Bahá’u’lláh makes “specific reference to ‘the swiftly
appearing newspapers,’ describes them as ‘the mirror of the world’ and
as ‘an amazing and potent phenomenon,’ and prescribes to all who are
responsible for their production the duty to be sanctified from malice,
passion and prejudice, to be just and fair-minded, to be painstaking in
their inquiries, and ascertain all the facts in every situation.”
In His social treatise, The Secret of Divine Civilization,
‘Abdu’l-Bahá offers insight as to the indispensability of the press in
future society. He says it is “urgent that beneficial articles and books
be written, clearly and definitely establishing what the present-day
requirements of the people are, and what will conduce to the happiness
and advancement of society.” Further, He writes of the “publication of
high thoughts” as the “dynamic power in the arteries of life,” “the very
soul of the world.” Moreover, He states that “Public opinion must be
directed toward whatever is worthy of this day, and this is impossible
except through the use of adequate arguments and the adducing of clear,
comprehensive and conclusive proofs.”
As
to manner and style, Bahá’u’lláh has exhorted “authors among the
friends” to “write in such a way as would be acceptable to fair-minded
souls, and not lead to caviling by the people.” And He issues a
reminder: “We have said in the past that one word hath the influence of
spring and causeth hearts to become fresh and verdant, while another is
like unto blight which causeth the blossoms and flowers to wither.”
In
the light of all this, the code of conduct of the press must embrace
the principles and objectives of consultation as revealed by
Bahá’u’lláh. Only in this way will the press be able to make its full
contribution to the preservation of the rights of the people and become a
powerful instrument in the consultative processes of society, and hence
for the unity of the human race.
* * *
Some
of the friends have suggested that the emergence of the Faith from
obscurity indicates the timeliness of ceasing observance in the Bahá’í
community of certain restraints; particularly are they concerned about
the temporary necessity of review before publishing.
That
the Faith has emerged from obscurity on a global scale is certain. This
definitely marks a triumphant stage in the efforts of the community to
register its existence on the minds of those who influence world events.
Consider how, because of the sufferings and sacrifices of the friends
in Iran, the concerns of the community in these respects have become a
matter of discussion in the most influential parliaments and the most
important international forums on earth. That this emergence frees the
Cause to pursue objectives hitherto unreachable is also undeniable; but
that it marks the attainment of the community’s anticipated maturity is
entirely doubtful.
How
could it have attained maturity, when we know from the clear guidance
of the beloved Guardian that obscurity is but one of the many stages in
the long evolution towards the Faith’s golden destiny? Has he not
advised us all that the subsequent stage of oppression must precede the
stages of its emancipation and its recognition as a world religion? Can
the friends forget the oft-quoted warning of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá concerning the
bitter opposition that will confront the Cause in various lands on all
continents? In the case of the American believers, has Shoghi Effendi
not alluded to this coming fury in his description of them as “the
invincible Army of Bahá’u’lláh, who in the West, and at one of its
potential storm centers is to fight, in His name and for His sake, one
of its fiercest and most glorious battles”?
Those
who are anxious to relax all restraint, who invoke freedom of speech as
the rationale for publishing every and any thing concerning the Bahá’í
community, who call for the immediate termination of the practice of
review now that the Faith has emerged from obscurity—are they not aware
of these sobering prospects? Widespread as has been the public revulsion
to the current persecutions in Iran, let there be no mistake about the
certainty of the opposition which must yet be confronted in many
countries, including that which is the Cradle of the Administrative
Order itself.
The
Faith is as yet in its infancy. Despite its emergence from obscurity,
even now the vast majority of the human race remains ignorant of its
existence; moreover, the vast majority of its adherents are relatively
new Bahá’ís. The change implied by this new stage in its evolution is
that whereas heretofore this tender plant was protected in its obscurity
from the attention of external elements, it has now become exposed.
This exposure invites close observation, and that observation will
eventually lead to opposition in various quarters. So, far from adopting
a carefree attitude, the community must be conscious of the necessity
to present a correct view of itself and an accurate understanding of its
purpose to a largely skeptical public. A greater effort, a greater care
must now be exercised to ensure its protection against the malice of
the ignorant and the unwisdom of its friends.
Let
us all remember that the struggle of the infant Faith of God to thrive
is beset with the turmoil of the present age. Like a tender shoot just
barely discernible above ground, it must be nurtured to strength and
maturity and buttressed as necessary against the blight of strong winds
and deadly entanglements with weeds and thistles. If we to whose care
this plant has been entrusted are insensitive to its tenderness, the
great tree which is its certain potential will be hindered in its growth
towards the spreading of its sheltering branches over all humankind.
From this perspective we must all consider the latent danger to the
Cause of ill-advised actions and exaggerated expectations; and
particularly must we all be concerned about the effects of words,
especially those put in print. It is here that Bahá’í authors and
publishers need to be attentive and exert rigorous discipline upon
themselves, as well as abide by the requirements of review at this early
stage in the development of the Faith.
* * *
The
right of the individual to self-expression has permeated the foregoing
comments on the various freedoms, but, even so, a word more might be
said about individual freedom. The fundamental attitude of the Faith in
this respect is best demonstrated by statements of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
concerning the family. “The integrity of the family bond,” He says,
“must be constantly considered, and the rights of the individual members
must not be transgressed.… All these rights and prerogatives must be
conserved, yet the unity of the family must be sustained. The injury of
one shall be considered the injury of all; the comfort of each, the
comfort of all; the honor of one, the honor of all.”
The
individual’s relation to society is explained by Shoghi Effendi in the
statement that “The Bahá’í conception of social life is essentially
based on the principle of the subordination of the individual will to
that of society. It neither suppresses the individual nor does it exalt
him to the point of making him an anti-social creature, a menace to
society. As in everything, it follows the ‘golden mean.’”
This
relationship, so fundamental to the maintenance of civilized life,
calls for the utmost degree of understanding and cooperation between
society and the individual; and because of the need to foster a climate
in which the untold potentialities of the individual members of society
can develop, this relationship must allow “free scope” for
“individuality to assert itself” through modes of spontaneity,
initiative and diversity that ensure the viability of society. Among the
responsibilities assigned to Bahá’í institutions which have a direct
bearing on these aspects of individual freedom and development is one
which is thus described in the Constitution of the Universal House of
Justice: “to safeguard the personal rights, freedom and initiative of
individuals.” A corollary is: “to give attention to the preservation of
human honor.”
How
noteworthy that in the Order of Bahá’u’lláh, while the individual will
is subordinated to that of society, the individual is not lost in the
mass but becomes the focus of primary development, so that he may find
his own place in the flow of progress, and society as a whole may
benefit from the accumulated talents and abilities of the individuals
composing it. Such an individual finds fulfillment of his potential not
merely in satisfying his own wants but in realizing his completeness in
being at one with humanity and with the divinely ordained purpose of
creation.
The
quality of freedom and of its expression—indeed, the very capacity to
maintain freedom in a society—undoubtedly depends on the knowledge and
training of individuals and on their ability to cope with the challenges
of life with equanimity. As the beloved Master has written: “And the
honor and distinction of the individual consist in this, that he among
all the world’s multitudes should become a source of social good. Is any
larger bounty conceivable than this, that an individual, looking within
himself, should find that by the confirming grace of God he has become
the cause of peace and well-being, of happiness and advantage to his
fellowmen? No, by the one true God, there is no greater bliss, no more
complete delight.”
* * *
The
spirit of liberty which in recent decades has swept over the planet
with such tempestuous force is a manifestation of the vibrancy of the
Revelation brought by Bahá’u’lláh. His own words confirm it. “The
Ancient Beauty,” He wrote in a soul-stirring commentary on His
sufferings, “hath consented to be bound with chains that mankind may be
released from its bondage, and hath accepted to be made a prisoner
within this most mighty Stronghold that the whole world may attain unto
true liberty.”
Might
it not be reasonably concluded, then, that “true liberty” is His gift
of love to the human race? Consider what Bahá’u’lláh has done: He
revealed laws and principles to guide the free; He established an Order
to channel the actions of the free; He proclaimed a Covenant to
guarantee the unity of the free.
Thus,
we hold to this ultimate perspective: Bahá’u’lláh came to set humanity
free. His Revelation is, indeed, an invitation to freedom—freedom from
want, freedom from war, freedom to unite, freedom to progress, freedom
in peace and joy.
You
who live in a land where freedom is so highly prized have not, then, to
dispense with its fruits, but you are challenged and do have the
obligation to uphold and vindicate the distinction between the license
that limits your possibilities for genuine progress and the moderation
that ensures the enjoyment of true liberty.
[signed: The Universal House of Justice]
