February 8. On this date in 1998, the Universal House of Justice wrote Susan Stiles Maneck a detailed response regarding her questions on the relationship between "materialistic methodologies" and "doctrinal heresy" in academic fields.
1. Letter from Maneck to the Universal House of Justice
Dear Universal House of Justice,
Thank you for taking the
time to respond at length to my letter in the message dated 20 July 1997
[below]. I have given this letter much thought, but remain confused by
several portions of it and would greatly appreciate
your clarification.
If I understand you
correctly you are suggesting that Western academic methodology is
typified by a "purely materialistic interpretation of reality" which
"ignores the issues of God's continuous relationship with
His creation." I am not entirely sure what is meant by this. It is true
that Western scientific and historical methodology admits its inability
to determine the truth or falsity of spiritual claims and cannot
presume their existence as they conduct their study.
But I would think that such a method would become materialistic only if
the scholar or scientist insists that because their scholarly apparatus
cannot equip them to detect divine intervention or involvement, that
such intervention does not therefore exist.
The historical-critical methodis rather like the proverbial the
spider's web. It is very good at capturing the "flies" of historical
circumstance and context, but utterly useless in snaring the "phoenix"
of revelation. If the tendency of some to deny the existence
of the "phoenix" because their inability to "snare" it, is what is
intended by "materialistic interpretations" I would certainly agree.
Sound academic methodology does not call for such a conclusion and those
who assume it are overstepping the proper bounds
of their field. It has been my observation that materialism arises in
scholarship, like all science, when it attempts to "take over" the
sphere belonging properly to revelation, whereas religion becomes
superstition when it attempts to assert its authority
over scientific matters. Just as in the case of the equality of men and
women we regard complementarity not sameness as the proper
relationship, so such complementarity ought to exist between science and
religion. When conflation occurs we end up with monstrosities
like Scientific Creationism and Scientology.
However, your connection of
"materialistic methodologies" with Covenantal issues make me wonder if
there is not something else at stake. Any academic enterprise dealing
with texts requires that the scholar get as
close to the original source, those closest in time to the events they
describe, as possible; and attempt to read these within the context in
which they were written. This can create a certain amount of tensions
with the common understanding of the Covenant
which tends to give precedence to authority and later interpretations. I
remember this issue came up for me in the course of a conversation I
had with Mr. ... years ago when I received an award from the Association
of Bahá'í Mr. ... was emphatic that I should
never write anything which might contradict things in any way either
the Dawnbreakers or God Passes By. I did not feel I could in good
conscience give him the assurance he asked me for because it was my
understanding that historical matters needed to rest
upon evidence rather than authority. Is this insistence on relying upon
original sources and giving precedence to evidence over authority what
the House of Justice has in mind when it refers to "materialistic
methodologies?"
I am well aware that the
House of Justice has, on numerous occasions, condemned materialistic
methodologies in connection with scholarship. Confusion on this issue
has created a great deal of estrangement among many
Bahá'í academics in relationship to the Bahá'í community at large.
Often times the community tends to regard any discovery made by
academicians as "materialistic" if it conflicts with commonly received
beliefs. Academicians, for their part, see many of the
so-called "integrative" methods supported by some Bahá'ís as a
reformulation of the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, which was guided
by the principle that authority must override the evidence and guide its
interpretation. They are resistant to it for they
see this method as having impeding the progress of science. I think it
would be of great help if the House of Justice would clarify this matter
by providing some precise models of what kind of scholarship they deem
"materialistic."
I note the statement
towards the end of your letter to the effect that "Bahá'ís who are
trained in various academic disciplines do not constitute a discrete
body within the community" and that there is "no group
of academics who can claim to speak on behalf of Bahá'í scholars in
generally. I hope that the House understands that any references I have
made to "academics" or to "administrators" within the Faith referred
solely to function and not to any class or body.
By academics here I meant solely those who have taken the Bahá'í Faith
as their object of study and not simply those who apply Bahá'í
principles to their scholarship in whatever field.
The House of Justice urged
me "to reflect deeply on the reasons why those pursuing this agenda seek
by every means possible to represent their actions as a disinterested
search for knowledge and themselves as victims
of authoritarianism." Please, allow me to make some observations based
upon what I know from my long years of association with many of these
individuals, friendships which have extended to the greater part of my
adult life. First, it must be recognized that
however distorted the picture which these people have presented, it
does genuinely reflect what they, themselves believe to be true. At the
same time, one must acknowledge that those perceptions have been so out
of keeping with the evidence of what actually
happened as to verge on paranoid delusion... The question which remains
is how this distrustful attitude towards authority came to prevail over
so many of the Bahá'í academics. Over a number of years scholars
experienced growing frustration with their difficulty
in gaining access to primary sources. Furthermore when one seemingly
legitimate academic endeavor after another come to naught because of the
disapproval of the Institutions, they began to suspect that the
Institutions were endeavoring to withhold the truth
from the body of believers. Thus, a significant portion of the Bahá'í
academic community, myself included, came to harbor grave doubts
regarding the integrity of the Institutions. Furthermore, many of them
came to believe that the only way in which truth could
be adequately safeguarded was to foster a kind of "civil society"
within the Bahá'í community which would allow for unfettered discourse.
Increasingly they began to make common cause with non-academics within
the Bahá'í community who were calling for extensive
administrative reforms. Then, when internet access allowed for the kind
of free-wheeling discourse they supported, long-festering doubts
rapidly became malignant in character and what had hitherto been
misgivings and suspicions came to be perceived as fact.
The paranoid mind set which prevailed so clouded the judgement of some
of the academics that they began to make wild accusations which betrayed
all the methods of sound scholarship and the rules of evidence which
they had fought so hard to defend.
The quote which you
provided me on the subject of hikmat may well hold the key to the very
different perceptions of the reality of this situation. Although
references to "wisdom" appear numerous times in the Writings,
Bahá'ís in the Western world are almost entirely ignorant of what it
signifies. Furthermore, the concept itself is utterly foreign to the
ethical standards which prevail in the West, and for Westerners it is
difficult to perceive of the exercise of hikmat
as anything other than sheer hypocrisy and deception. While Bahá'í
academics trained in Persian and Arabic are more familiar with this term
and its usage, they especially cannot find ways of reconciling it with
the standards of truth promoted both in their
profession and the Writings as well. My own article "Wisdom and
Dissimulation", published recently in Bahá'í Studies Review, represented
my own feeble attempt to come to terms with this issue. To my knowledge
it is the only thing written in English on this
topic and I do not think I was able to reach any satisfying resolution
to the dilemmas posed by the demands for both truth and wisdom as found
in the Writings. It is my perception that this inability to balance
truth and wisdom represents a much more fundamental
issue facing Bahá'í scholars than either issues of methodology or the
question of individual rights versus responsibilities (although the
latter is certainly related.) Guidance from the Institutions which would
assist Western Bahá'ís and professional academics
in particular regarding the manner in which they might exercise wisdom
without compromising standards of honesty, integrity, and truthfulness
which they hold so dear might help remediate this problem. It may be as
well, that Bahá'í academics all too often
have not recognized that to a great extent failure to exercise wisdom
represents a failure of love.
I appreciate the assurance of your prayers at the Sacred Shrine.
-
With loving Bahá'í greetings,
Susan Stiles Maneck
2. Second letter from Maneck to the Universal House of Justice
To: Bahai World CentreSubject: Addendum to Sept. 21 letter
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997
Dear Universal House of Justice,
I am writing this letter as
an addendum to the letter I sent you dated September 21, 1997. There
was a question I still had in regards to your message to me dated 20
July 1997 which I did not ask because at the time
I could not decide how best to articulate it in a befitting manner. You
will recall that I had suggested that many of the difficulties had
arisen because many Bahá'í historians and Middle East specialists had
exceeded the proper bounds of their calling as
scholars by interfering in administrative affairs with their constant
criticisms of the institutions. You responded by stating that there were
far greater problems involved, referring to "the behavior of a very
small group of Bahá'ís who . . . aggressively
sought to promote their misconceptions of the Teachings among their
fellow believers." You further refer to attempts "to alter the essential
nature of Bahá'u'lláh's message."
While I recognize that in
some cases certain Bahá'ís have done precisely that, these statements
were troubling to me inasmuch as they raised questions in regards to the
limits of tolerance within the Bahá'í Faith.
Specifically, as you are no doubt aware, Dr. ... has been vigorously
insisting that the investigation which was launched by the International
Teaching Center against himself and others was motivated by a desire to
impose a rigid doctrinal conformity on Bahá'í
scholars which would be inconsistent with our ability to function as
academics. I had argued, to the contrary, that the investigation was
largely launched in reaction to what was seen as an attack on the
Institutions themselves. For this reason your letter
of 20 July created much confusion for me because it seemed to vindicate
Dr. ...'s perception of these events.
My question is, to what
extent does the House see these problems as issues of doctrinal heresy
which must therefore be suppressed and to what extent are the
Institutions empowered to do this? I am aware, for instance,
of the verse in the Will and Testament which reads: "To none is given
the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular
conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of the Cause
and the House of Justice." I note, however that
the term for opinion here is rai which is one of the principles (usul)
of Islamic jurisprudence. Given the juridical language of this entire
section of the Will and Testament I would assume that `Abdu'l-Bahá was
speaking here largely of opinions in regard
to matters of Bahá'í law and practice rather than doctrine.
If the Universal House of
Justice does regard the imposition of orthodoxy on the Bahá'í community
as within the purview of the authority of the Institutions I wonder if
you could explain to me how this fits in with
the tolerance which `Abdu'l-Bahá calls for elsewhere within the
Writings. I am thinking for instance of the passage in Kitab-I Bada'i
al-Athar 1:294 where `Abdu'l-Bahá insists that there must be no
interference in beliefs or conscience. I also note that in
another Tablet `Abdu'l-Bahá states that so long as courtesy is
maintained that in the Faith no one can rule over a persons conscience.
He goes on to say that such freedom does not extend to matters of divine
law. (Ma'idih-yi Asmani 5:17-18.) I also have in
mind Bahá'u'lláh's Tablet to Bourjerdi where even over the vital issue
of the station of the Manifestation, Bahá'u'lláh refuses to allow the
imposition of rigid dogma.
Thank you for your careful consideration of the issues I raise and for your continued prayers at the Sacred Shrines.
-
Obediently yours,
Susan Maneck
3. Letter from the Universal House of Justice to Maneck
8 February 1998
Transmitted by email
Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck
U.S.A.
U.S.A.
Dear Bahá'í Friend,
The Universal House of
Justice received your emails of 21 September and 17 November 1997 and
much regrets the delay in responding. It has instructed us to send you
the following comments which it trusts will
be helpful to you in your endeavour to understand various points made
previously to yourself and other friends.
Your email of 21
September covers a number of issues, the first of which relates to
methods followed in researching, understanding and writing about
historical events, and the elements of these methods which
the House of Justice regards as being influenced by materialism. The
purpose of scholarship in such fields should obviously be the
ascertainment of truth, and Bahá'í scholars should, of course, observe
the highest standards of honesty, integrity and truthfulness.
Moreover, the House of Justice accepts that many scholarly methods have
been developed which are soundly based and of enduring validity. It
nevertheless questions some presumptions of certain current academic
methods because it sees these producing a distorted
picture of reality.
The training of some
scholars in fields such as religion and history seems to have restricted
their vision and blinded them to the culturally determined basis of
elements of the approach they have learned. It
causes them to exclude from consideration factors which, from a Bahá'í
point of view, are of fundamental importance. Truth in such fields
cannot be found if the evidence of Revelation is systematically excluded
and if discourse is limited by a basically deterministic
view of the world.
Some of the
protagonists in the discussions on the Internet have implied that the
only way to attain a true understanding of historical events and of the
purport of the sacred and historical records of the Cause
of God is through the rigid application of methods narrowly defined in a
materialistic framework. They have even gone so far as to stigmatize
whoever proposes a variation of these methods as wishing to obscure the
truth rather than unveil it.
The House of Justice
recognizes that, at the other extreme, there are Bahá'ís who, imbued by
what they conceive to be loyalty to Bahá'u'lláh, cling to blind
acceptance of what they understand to be a statement
of the Sacred Text. This shortcoming demonstrates an equally serious
failure to grasp the profundity of the Bahá'í principle of the harmony
of faith and reason. The danger of such an attitude is that it exalts
personal understanding of some part of the Revelation
over the whole, leads to illogical and internally
| Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck U.S.A. |
8 February 1998 Page 2 |
inconsistent applications
of the Sacred Text, and provides fuel to those who would mistakenly
characterize loyalty to the Covenant as "fundamentalism".
It is not surprising
that individual Bahá'ís hold and express different and sometimes
defective understandings of the Teachings; this is but an evidence of
the magnitude of the change that this Revelation is
to effect in human consciousness. As believers with various insights
into the Teachings converse -- with patience, tolerance and open and
unbiased minds -- a deepening of comprehension should take place. The
strident insistence on individual views, however,
can lead to contention, which is detrimental not only to the spirit of
Bahá'í association and collaboration but to the search for truth itself.
Beyond contention,
moreover, is the condition in which a person is so immovably attached to
one erroneous viewpoint that his insistence upon it amounts to an
effort to change the essential character of the Faith.
This kind of behaviour, if permitted to continue unchecked, could
produce disruption in the Bahá'í community, giving birth to countless
sects as it has done in previous Dispensations. The Covenant of
Bahá'u'lláh prevents this. The Faith defines elements of
a code of conduct, and it is ultimately the responsibility of the
Universal House of Justice, in watching over the security of the Cause
and upholding the integrity of its Teachings, to require the friends to
adhere to standards thus defined.
The Universal House of
Justice does not see itself obliged to prescribe a new scientific
methodology for Bahá'í academics who make study of the Faith, its
teachings and history the subject of their professional
activities. Rather has it concentrated on drawing the attention of
these friends to the inadequacy of certain approaches from a Bahá'í
point of view, urging them to apply to their work the concept which they
accept as Bahá'ís: that the Manifestation of God
is of a higher realm and has a perception far above that of any human
being. He has the task of raising humankind to a new level of knowledge
and behaviour. In this, His understanding transcends the traditions and
concepts of the society in which He appears.
As Bahá'u'lláh Himself writes in the Hidden Words:
O Son of Beauty! By My spirit and by My favor! By My mercy and by My beauty! All that I have revealed unto thee with the tongue of power, and have written for thee with the pen of might, hath been in accordance with thy capacity and understanding, not with My state and the melody of My voice.Although, in conveying His Revelation, the Manifestation uses the language and culture of the country into which He is born, He is not confined to using terminology with the same connotations as those given to it by His predecessors or contemporaries; He delivers His message in a form which His audience, both immediate and in centuries to come, is capable of grasping. It is for Bahá'í scholars to elaborate, over a period of time, methodologies which will enable them to perform their work with this understanding. This is a challenging task, but not one which should be beyond the scope of Bahá'ís who are learned in the Teachings as well as competent in their scientific disciplines.
This brings us to the
specific points raised in your email of 17 November 1997. As you well
understand, not only the right but also the responsibility
| Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck U.S.A. |
8 February 1998 Page 3 |
of each believer to explore
truth for himself or herself are fundamental to the Bahá'í teachings.
This principle is an integral feature of the coming of age of humankind,
inseparable from the social transformation
to which Bahá'u'lláh is calling the peoples of the world. It is as
relevant to specifically scholarly activity as it is to the rest of
spiritual and intellectual life. Every human being is ultimately
responsible to God for the use which he or she makes of
these possibilities; conscience is never to be coerced, whether by
other individuals or institutions.
Conscience, however, is
not an unchangeable absolute. One dictionary definition, although not
covering all the usages of the term, presents the common understanding
of the word "conscience" as "the sense of right
and wrong as regards things for which one is responsible; the faculty
or principle which pronounces upon the moral quality of one's actions or
motives, approving the right and condemning the wrong".
The functioning of
one's conscience, then, depends upon one's understanding of right and
wrong; the conscience of one person may be established upon a
disinterested striving after truth and justice, while that
of another may rest on an unthinking predisposition to act in
accordance with that pattern of standards, principles and prohibitions
which is a product of his social environment. Conscience, therefore, can
serve either as a bulwark of an upright character
or can represent an accumulation of prejudices learned from one's
forebears or absorbed from a limited social code.
A Bahá'í recognizes
that one aspect of his spiritual and intellectual growth is to foster
the development of his conscience in the light of divine Revelation -- a
Revelation which, in addition to providing a
wealth of spiritual and ethical principles, exhorts man "to free
himself from idle fancy and imitation, discern with the eye of oneness
His glorious handiwork, and look into all things with a searching eye".
This process of development, therefore, involves
a clear-sighted examination of the conditions of the world with both
heart and mind. A Bahá'í will understand that an upright life is based
upon observance of certain principles which stem from Divine Revelation
and which he recognizes as essential for the
well-being of both the individual and society. In order to uphold such
principles, he knows that, in certain cases, the voluntary submission of
the promptings of his own personal conscience to the decision of the
majority is a conscientious requirement, as
in wholeheartedly accepting the majority decision of an Assembly at the
outcome of consultation.
In the discussion of
wisdom in your email of 21 September 1997, you observe that maybe
"Bahá'í academics all too often have not recognized that to a great
extent failure to exercise wisdom represents a failure
of love." The House of Justice agrees that the exercise of wisdom calls
for a measure of love and the development of a sensitive conscience.
These, in turn, involve not only devotion to a high standard of
uprightness, but also consideration of the effects
of one's words and actions.
A Bahá'í's duty to
pursue an unfettered search after truth should lead him to understand
the Teachings as an organic, logically coherent whole, should cause him
to examine his own ideas and motives, and should
enable him to see
| Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck U.S.A. |
8 February 1998 Page 4 |
that adherence to the
Covenant, to which he is a party, is not blind imitation but conscious
choice, freely made and freely followed.
In many of His
utterances, `Abdu'l-Bahá extols governments which uphold freedom of
conscience for their citizens. As can be seen from the context, these
statements refer to the freedom to follow the religion
of one's choice. In the original of a passage to which you refer in
your email of 17 November 1997, He gives the following analysis of
freedom.
There are three types of freedom. The first is divine freedom, which is one of the inherent attributes of the Creator for He is unconstrained in His will, and no one can force Him to change His decree in any matter whatsoever....Education of the individual Bahá'í in the Divine law is one of the duties of Spiritual Assemblies. In a letter to a National Assembly on 1 March 1951, Shoghi Effendi wrote:The second is the political freedom of Europeans, which leaves the individual free to do whatsoever he desires as long as his action does not harm his neighbour. This is natural freedom, and its greatest expression is seen in the animal world. Observe these birds and notice with what freedom they live. However much man may try, he can never be as free as an animal, because the existence of order acts as an impediment to freedom.The third freedom is that which is born of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Almighty. This is the freedom of the human world, where man severs his affections from all things. When he does so, he becomes immune to all hardship and sorrow. Wealth or material power will not deflect him from moderation and fairness, neither will poverty or need inhibit him from showing forth happiness and tranquillity. The more the conscience of man develops, the more will his heart be free and his soul attain unto happiness. In the religion of God, there is freedom of thought because God, alone, controls the human conscience, but this freedom should not go beyond courtesy. In the religion of God, there is no freedom of action outside the law of God. Man may not transgress this law, even though no harm is inflicted on one's neighbour. This is because the purpose of Divine law is the education of all -- others as well as oneself -- and, in the sight of God, the harm done to one individual or to his neighbour is the same and is reprehensible in both cases. Hearts must possess the fear of God. Man should endeavour to avoid that which is abhorrent unto God. Therefore, the freedom that the laws of Europe offer to the individual does not exist in the law of God. Freedom of thought should not transgress the bounds of courtesy, and actions, likewise, should be governed by the fear of God and the desire to seek His good pleasure.
The deepening and enrichment of the spiritual life of the individual believer, his increasing comprehension of the essential verities
| Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck U.S.A. |
8 February 1998 Page 5 |
underlying this Faith, his training in its administrative processes, his understanding of the fundamentals of the Covenants established by its Author and the authorized Interpreter of its teachings, should be made the supreme objectives of the national representatives responsible for the edification, the progress and consolidation of these communities.Such is the duty resting on the elected institutions of the Faith for the promotion of the spiritual, moral and ethical lives of the individual believers. Parallel with this, the Bahá'í Faith upholds the freedom of conscience which permits a person to follow his chosen religion: no one may be compelled to become a Bahá'í, or to remain a Bahá'í if he conscientiously wishes to leave the Faith. As to the thoughts of the Bahá'ís themselves -- that is those who have chosen to follow the religion of Bahá'u'lláh -- the institutions do not busy themselves with what individual believers think unless those thoughts become expressed in actions which are inimical to the basic principles and vital interests of the Faith.
With regard to the
accusation that to make such distinctions borders on restriction of the
freedom of speech, one should accept that civil society has long
recognized that utterance can metamorphose into behaviour,
and has taken steps to protect itself and its citizens against such
behaviour when it becomes socially destructive. Laws against sedition
and hate-mongering are examples that come readily to mind.
It will surely be clear
to you from the above comments that the categories of "issues of
doctrinal heresy which must therefore be suppressed" and "the imposition
of orthodoxy on the Bahá'í community", to which
you refer, are concepts essentially drawn from the study of
Christianity and are inapplicable to the far more complex
interrelationships and principles established by the Bahá'í Faith.
It is important for all
those Bahá'ís who are engaged in the academic study of the Bahá'í Faith
to address the theoretical problems which undoubtedly exist, while
refusing to be distracted by insidious and unscholarly
attacks and calumnies which may periodically be injected into their
discussions by the ill-intentioned. Discussion with those who sincerely
raise problematic issues, whether they be Bahá'ís or not, and whether --
if the latter -- they disagree with Bahá'í
teachings, can be beneficial and enlightening. However, to continue
dialogue with those who have shown a fixed antagonism to the Faith, and
have demonstrated their imperviousness to any ideas other than their
own, is usually fruitless and, for the Bahá'ís
who take part, can be burdensome and even spiritually corrosive.
The problem which
aroused the concern of the House of Justice, and has been the subject of
a number of communications, was the systematic corruption of Bahá'í
discourse in certain of the Internet discussion groups,
a design which became increasingly apparent to many of the Bahá'í
participants and whose first victim, if it were to succeed, would be
Bahá'í scholarship itself. The element which exacerbated a dispute which
had been simmering during the past two decades and
erupted on the Internet was the participation of some persons who,
while nominally Bahá'ís, cherished their own programs and designed to
make use of the Bahá'í Cause for the advancement of these programs. To
this end they strove to change the essential characteristics
of that Cause. This
| Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck U.S.A. |
8 February 1998 Page 6 |
behaviour has been
abundantly confirmed by statements made and actions taken by certain of
the involved individuals since they withdrew from the Bahá'í community.
They sought to use the language, the occasions and
the credibility of scholarly activity to lend a counterfeit authority
to a private enterprise which was essentially ideological in nature and
self-motivated in origin. Even if their original aims were idealistic in
nature -- no matter how ill-informed and
erroneous in concept -- they had evolved in practice into an assault on
the Covenant which Bahá'u'lláh has created as a stronghold within which
His Cause would evolve as He intends. The purpose of some of those
responsible would seem to be that, by diminishing
the station of Bahá'u'lláh -- a disservice done to previous
Manifestations by people similarly inclined --, by casting doubt on the
authority conferred on `Abdu'l-Bahá, the Guardian and the Universal
House of Justice, and by calling into question the integrity
of Bahá'í administrative processes, they would be able to persuade a
number of unwary followers that the Bahá'í Faith is in fact not a Divine
Revelation but a kind of socio-political system being manipulated by
ambitious individuals.
Your own familiarity
with these same persons' behaviour will have provided you with ample
illustration of the violence being done by their public and private
statements to Bahá'u'lláh's teachings, which they
profess to honour, and to the cause of scholarship, which they profess
to serve. We cannot separate method from spirit and character. In The
Secret of Divine Civilization, `Abdu'l-Bahá gives the standard for the
"spiritually learned" whom He describes as "skilled
physicians for the ailing body of the world" and "the sure antidote to
the poison that has corrupted human society":
For every thing, however, God has created a sign and symbol, and established standards and tests by which it may be known. The spiritually learned must be characterized by both inward and outward perfections; they must possess a good character, an enlightened nature, a pure intent, as well as intellectual power, brilliance and discernment, intuition, discretion and foresight, temperance, reverence, and a heartfelt fear of God. For an unlit candle, however great in diameter and tall, is no better than a barren palm tree or a pile of dead wood.We trust that these comments will help you to see the implications of the points conveyed in the emailed letter of 20 July 1997. The House of Justice asks us to assure you of its continuing prayers on your behalf.
-
With loving Bahá'í greetings,
Department of the Secretariat
No comments:
Post a Comment