The American NSA starts the letter by saying there are two key areas where Baha’is can/should contribute most: 1) “affirm the true of the oneness of humanity” and 2) "remove the stains of prejudice and injustice from the fabric of our society."
So far, research on anti-racism efforts has confirmed that cooperative efforts between people of different groups helps diminish their prejudice. More broadly, if people will establish and sustain lasting connections in their personal or work relationships with persons of different backgrounds, their prejudices against persons of those backgrounds will (generally speaking, as a rule) tend to decrease. The mechanism for this is probably some enhancement of empathy and love for individuals of the “outsider" group tends to influence a broader perspective that is less prejudiced against all persons of that group. We’ve known about this since the late 1950s, and it's been replicated many times. The emphasis on “oneness of humanity” will therefore work, if it is built around helping people establish collaborative or affective relationships with persons of other backgrounds.
The other method for diminishing prejudice came after the technology of measuring implicit racism by studying differences in reaction times between identifying matches or mis-matches between words and images. Reactions tend to be quicker when preferred group images or words were paired with positive words or images and oppressed group images or words were paired with negative words or images. These measures of “implicit bias” revealed in a quantitative way how brains found it easier to associate African-American faces or names with negative words or images. The technology that seems to work against this (in addition to the old standard of establishing collaborative and affective relationships with persons from the oppressed group) is a sort of hybrid mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Persons must become mindful of prejudicial thoughts, and learn to monitor their own thinking to detect prejudicial assumptions or thoughts or fears, and then learn to replace such prejudicial thoughts with correct non-prejudicial thoughts in a matter-of-fact and non-fearful or guilty manner. That is, if people are horrified or ashamed to recognize their prejudicial thoughts or feelings, it becomes more difficult to diminish those intrusive thoughts. People have to be accepting of their “racism" as a natural consequence of living in our society, and simply commit to working at replacing the racist thoughts with corrected non-racist thinking, recognizing that this is a project that will take time and effort and constant vigilance, but that it’s something everyone has to do, because the racist narratives in our society that produce these intrusive racist assumptions in our minds infect everyone (not just European-Americans or persons comfortable in their racist prejudices).
Since the "fabric of our society” includes the mental habits of Americans, the NSA may also be calling for this sort of anti-racist cognitive work among the Baha’is.
Beyond the problems of racist thinking or prejudices in the minds of individuals, we also have policies and behaviors that perpetuate oppression, and it’s likely that the NSA is also referring to these institutionalized racism aspects of American society when they refer to “stains" on the fabric of our society. Policies and laws that perpetuate inequality or oppression are more often solved by political practice (but not necessarily partisan practice, of course, although our popular culture and media tend to depict political practice as partisan, although it need not be, and in fact often isn’t).
The NSA uses the metaphor of a medical disorder to describe problems in American society. The symptoms (manifestations) of this disorder are, according to them:
- Rampant materialism
- Widespread moral decay
- Deeply ingrained racial prejudice
Those are rhetorically good points to make. I doubt the second point is technically true, or quite what the NSA (or the UHJ) think it is, but moral depravity is widespread, and a problem, so I don’t make much of a fuss about whether it's increasing or decreasing or steady (I doubt it’s increasing much).
Materialistic philosophy, and the dominance of the physicalist paradigm in popular culture and academic culture (including scientific culture) certainly feeds some of the nihilism, and the consequent emphasis on climbing the unending “hedonic ladder” trying to accumulate more and better stuff hoping it will enhance one's mood, or in contrast, despairing that life is pointless or without moral significance, and therefore we can make up anything we like to guide us. The NSA chose to blame “materialism” rather than “capitalism" because, I suppose, the toxic sort of capitalism that dominates our society and devalues life and spiritual qualities is itself a manifestation of the materialism at its root. We Baha’is are in some sense (a very limited sense) reactionary “paleo conservative” in our critique of society, because the emphasis on material development, economic growth, and the flourishing of consumer culture is something we do not favor (or oppose—we're essentially neutral to such things), while both the traditional liberal/radicals and conservative/libertarians in America take these things to be the highest good and the greatest aim of all their policies. In voicing our opposition to materialism (and as a consequence, objecting to some of the fundamental values of American economic conservatism, liberalism, and socialism) Baha’is are in a group with the paleo-conservatives, Greens, Christian socialists, and others who suggest that having more free time for sharing good experiences with family and friends, pursuing recreation and hobbies, improving the quality of our relationships to other people or the natural environment, connecting with others in more meaningful and supportive ways, or cultivating the mind or soul should be the aim of our policies and values, rather than economic growth or military power or higher levels of purchasing power, or whatever the dominant ideologies are extolling as the ultimate ends or the most effective means for achieving human happiness.
The third point is correct, I think. However, one must be a little cautious about it. Back in the days of Abdu’l-Baha some Baha'is and friends of the Baha’i Community (such as Alaine Locke, a Baha’i, and W. E. B. DuBois, a friend of the Baha’is who attended some Baha’i events and published essays in Baha’i publications) were aware that the Baha’i Faith identified racial prejudice as a foundational problem in American society. This was even more true in the days of Shoghi Effendi, who was rather more explicit and vocal about America’s racism being one of our fundamental or central problems. In those days, the Baha’is stood apart from most other elements of society in our emphasis on racism as a problem (I think the Father Divine cult-like movement and the American Communist Party were two of the other groups framing racism as a problem in those days). So, up until recently, when Baha’is continued to say what we have been saying since the 1910s about American racism, no one could hear that message and think the Baha’is had jumped on some sort of bandwagon about racism. In the past fifty years, however, anti-racist work and political action exploded, and the voices joined in emphasizing the problem of racism have included diverse opinions and perspectives, including some unsavory ones. Among Americans who are skeptical about anti-racist work there are of course the 10% to 20% who are traditional straight-out racists who openly believe in the idea that humanity is not one and African-Americans (or mixed-race, or American Indians, or whatever) are inferior. There are also a greater number (perhaps 25% to 33%) who do agree that humanity is one, but generally are skeptical of anti-racists because much of the anti-racist movement has become associated (in their minds, at least) with many other things, and some of those other things seem repugnant to this group of a quarter-to-a-third of the population that is not blatantly racist, but is cautious or opposed to some anti-racist work. To simplify too much, these are the people who don’t like David Duke, but voted for Trump. They know that sometimes people who call out racism are just virtue-signaling. They see that sometimes accusations of racism are just used to bully people and shut down a discussion. They are concerned that efforts to make our language less supportive of racism and prejudices are sometimes exerted in ways that are disrespectful or hurtful or ridiculous (“thought-police” and absurd “political correctness”). They point out that one can have principled opposition to affirmative reaction without being racist, and measures of racial prejudice that include opposition to affirmative action as measures of “bias” are unfair to those who have principled reasons, lumping them together with the people who oppose affirmative action simply because “it hurts whites and helps blacks”. That is to say, there is overlap between some conservative policy views and racist views, and to the extent that liberal or radical anti-racists are willing to perceive those areas of overlap as a manifestation of racism, they are failing to distinguish between ignorant racism and well-informed and principled conservative premises and values that are not racist, but lead to the same position.
If we already have 30%-40% of the population firmly in agreement that racism is a fundamental problem, then we need to mainly work on the undecideds and the 25% to 33% who agree that humanity is one, but don't see the necessity for prioritizing anti-racism work. We may also need to work on trying to convert some of those 10% hard-core old fashioned racists, but that’s not my priority, because that’s an inefficient use of efforts.
But anyway, I agree that materialism is one of the central problems. It is the root of nihilism (and the moral depravity that is fairly common in personal behavior and political policies and practice). Materialism guides our resistance to making necessary changes to prevent climate catastrophe. Materialism guides our inability to eliminate extremes of poverty. Materialism infects human relationships and diminishes the quality of friendships and family relations. Materialism supports the acceptance of people devoting so much time to frivolous pursuits and clownish rejection of idealism and sincerity, in a celebration of irony and cynicism.
Likewise racism is one of the central problems. American racism with its specific dynamic of putting down African-Americans and other persons who aren’t identified with the hegemonic European-American majority causes health problems on a massive scale, and deprives African-Americans (on average) of several years of life and good health. To the extent that European-Americans gain advantages from it, it deprives them of moral innocence in all their successes, and diminishes the quality of their triumphs and accomplishments. The high levels of violent crime in America are rooted in racism. The mass incarceration of Americans is rooted in racism. The gross inequalities in wealth (and to a lesser extent, in income) are rooted in racism. Our failure to live up to our ideals of being an efficient meritocracy where the virtue and ability of people corresponds to their life satisfaction, emotional security, and material comfort is rooted in racism. More broadly, the American racism that manifests in American fear or contempt for persons who come from lands beyond our borders may cause untold human misery in the long-run as we fail to promote good government and education and health care systems around the world, and fail to cooperate to maintain a peaceful world order and adjust our lives to avoid a climate disaster.
The NSA says that we are all suffer from the effects of the maladies. Yes. And that is the realization that makes the mindfulness/cognitive-behavioral approach to intrusive prejudicial thoughts work; people need to realize that every individual is responsible for their little part of the wide problem, but that doesn't mean each person should feel especially guilty or ashamed, because the problem is pervasive and nearly universal, and rooted in society and culture and history, so no single person can or should take responsibility (or blame or guilt) for the whole toxic thing, we each have the responsibility to do our little part to make ourselves and the world close to us a bit better.
According to the NSA's letter, the response to the challenge “lies in recognizing and embracing the truth… that humanity is one.”
And who is not already embracing that truth?
Maybe the persons denying that truth are the 42% of European-Americans who say African-Americans are “about as well-off as” or “better off than” European-Americans; or the 41% of European-Americans who say “too much attention” is paid to race and racial issues in the U.S. today. Would it include the 32% of European-Americans who believed that Obama made race relations worse in the United States? Maybe it's the 60% of European-Americans who did not "somewhat” or “strongly” support the Black Lives Matter movement? These are all figures from a 2016 Pew Research Center poll on race relations, and I’m trying to point out that the people who responded with these sorts of answers are probably more ignorant or prejudiced, but even among them, many might agree in the unity of humanity, and see their opinions as merely disagreements about tactics or strategies in achieving unity and justice in our society. In other words, the people who reject the unity of humanity are a minority in our society, and possibly a minority of fewer than a third of us.
So, does recognizing the unity of humanity mean something else, and something deeper? Perhaps the majority of the country that would answer a survey with an agreement that “humanity is one” don’t really fully and deeply believe in the unity of humanity. That is, they may superficially agree, but they haven’t thought through the implications of that belief and incorporated their professed belief into some sort of action plan in their personal lives to promote unity. Or, maybe it really is the case that it's that 20% to 30% who haven’t accepted the unity of humanity that is holding us back. Clearly, to end the racial prejudices that people tolerate or lament-without-doing-much-to-solve-the-problem we do need that shared value about the unity of humanity, but how do we expect this acceptance to manifest, and how do we expect “sharing Baha’u’llah’s message” to encourage more people to accept the value?
The NSA reminds Baha’is that our methods are supposed to not divide people into contending groups. We are instead supposed to bring people together in earnest and honest searches for answers. That is true, and it’s a point I make when I teach my students about promoting social change. The human tendency toward tribalism and creating conceptual barriers between “in-group” (deserving of our loyalty) and “out-group” (enemies or potential enemies) undermines many attempts to solve social problems. And yet, of course, it’s a fact that sometimes when you are trying to improve society there really are “enemies” who (at least on that issue you’re working on) are opposed to you and trying to discredit or attack you. You may be able to bring people of good-will together to promote an intervention or technology that is likely to reduce racism, but there will be people of ill-will opposing you, and those people will see themselves as virtuous and good.
When the NSA characterizes “current approaches that tend to divide people into contending groups” do they mean “those sort of current approaches" that tend to divide, meaning that there are some current techniques that fail because they lack love, inclusiveness, and reciprocity? Or, does the NSA intend to characterize “current approaches” in general as usually having that flaw of being divisive and “tribal" in targeting enemies rather than being loving and inclusive? The way the letter is written, it seems to me the NSA is characterizing “current techniques” in general as being divisive. I disagree. Some current techniques are divisive. Partisan political processes, in particular, have become divisive, with Democrats claiming anti-racism as their cause and Republicans to some degree rejecting anti-racism because it is associated with their rivals the Democrats. But as someone who actually researches and studies efforts to reduce prejudice and racism, it seems to me that most of the work actually being done in this area is just as the NSA promotes: inclusive and non-divisive. Well, the mass media may be emphasizing the divisive and partisan political nature of the issue, as that sort of controversy seems more attractive to the general reading audience, and advertisers want more of an audience, so commercial media promotes narratives that accentuate divisiveness. But, really, within the realm of law and policy and anti-racism work in schools and communities, the leadership often comes from interfaith groups and idealistic people from across the political spectrum who are eager to collaborate on addressing the problem in inclusive ways. At least, these are the people are thinking about how to be effective and actually get some measurable accomplishments. But even the divisive activists may have some measurable accomplishments they are aiming toward, and if they achieve those policy objectives, even if they do so through divisive means, they may yet have a net benefit to our society. Anyway, I hope the NSA doesn’t promote a narrative that “Baha’is know how to do this work because we emphasize unity and love and inclusiveness and most current activists are failing because they are divisive and partisan” because such a narrative is not going to go over well, especially if it comes in the same letter that says we shouldn’t be divisive. Actually, putting down people who are trying their best because their techniques have flaws and claiming that you could or are doing a better job because you don’t have those flaws is itself a sort of divisive behavior in which Baha’is are promoting their own “in-group” over the out-group of non-Baha’i activists.
When a letter says that Baha’i ideals challenge current assumptions I always try to understand what those current assumptions (the wrong assumptions, I guess) are. Also, if we are going to “revolutionize our conceptions of the relationships that should exist between individuals, society, and institutions” I wonder what the NSA is talking about. Which “conceptions of the relationships that should exist between individuals, society, and institutions” are currently so off-base and wrong that we need revolutionary rethinking and change? Which conceptualizations? Name one. If they asked me to think of some, I could come up with a few, but they aren’t uniquely recognized by Baha’is or through the specific Baha’i Revelation. Is there some value statement or mission statement of some group, or some opinion expressed in an editorial or implicit in some legislation that the NSA could point to and say, “see, that is the sort of conception of ideal relationships between individuals and society/institutions that has become outmoded and needs revolutionary change because of the fact that humanity is one,” or are they just writing essentially that “things are very bad now, and we’re misguided, so we need revolutionary rethinking of how society ought to be” and expressing that in the vague language of “conceptions of the relationships that should exist between individuals, society, and institutions”? I just have trouble believing that this has been carefully thought out, but perhaps it has been, and some Baha'is have written about it, and I just haven't been exposed to their thinking.
The NSA does offer the insight that there is a spiritual reality to human beings, and perhaps they mean to claim that current institutions are ignoring that fact. They also claim that there is a moral requirement that “all be given every opportunity to fulfill their potential and contribute…” and yet this is in fact an underlying moral value of American liberal thinking, according to Berkeley scholars such as George Lakoff (who says that liberal Americans approach morality in policy by using a metaphor of a nurturing family that provides what children need so they can achieve their potential) or Robert Reich (who says that liberals should frame their arguments for their policies with an argument that the public has a moral duty to offer everyone, including the children of poor and oppressed minorities, an opportunity to fulfill their potential as human beings). The idea expressed by the NSA that we need a recognition that there is a moral duty to give people the means to meet their potential in terms of growth and making contributions is also pretty fundamental to economist-philosopher Amartya Sen, or the late philosophers John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin, who sort of provide the moral philosophical bedrock for mainstream American liberalism.
Although I identify as a “Baha’i” or an “independent seeker of truth" rather than as a radical or liberal or green, and I do find the tendencies toward group-think and partisanship among self-professed radicals, liberals, and greens to be sometimes tedious, it is pretty clear to me that the moral philosophy at the foundation of most of their policy ideals is pretty much the same as what Baha’u’llah teaches, and in fact many of the artifacts of the western democratic liberal tradition, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent conventions on human rights, as well as the social welfare safety nets that reduce the misery of poverty and the regulatory regimes that constrain the worst excesses of the wealthy power-elite and capitalists by protecting workers and consumers and the environment all seem to be manifestations of the spirit of the Baha’i Revelation in human government. When I was young, most conservatives shared in these beliefs, and the difference between conservatives and liberals was a matter of to what degree we ought to regulate and constrain, or redistribute and provide security, or promote human rights. It has only been since the 1990s that American conservatives have dropped out of that consensus, and really only since the Trump take-over of the Republican Party that most conservatives are rejecting the value of human rights, or a social welfare safety net, or constraints on the power of capitalists.
I don't think the NSA means to attack all these things, but when one is pointing out that there are serious flaws in the existing social order, and we need revolutionary thinking about what should replace what we have now, it’s sometimes worthwhile to constrain your rhetoric to critiques of those aspects of society that are rotten and harmful. If you criticize everything, you risk failure when you attempt to bring together people in a loving and inclusive way. Some of what we have in society today is working or attempting to work, and much of what we have is informed by a conception of human beings as spiritual beings.
At the top of page 2, the NSA says that Baha’i community knows how to be a force for progress. They point to the Five Year Plan and the work of community-building and personal-and-social transformation. They are, I suppose, referring to the practice of small-group study of scripture and pilgrim’s notes incorporated into books (the "Ruhi" books) that emphasize engagement with the ideas and the practical expression of those ideas through activities, with an emphasis on devotions and children's moral education classes. I read The American Baha'i and follow Baha’i news online, and I'm aware that there are indeed many anecdotal examples of very good development associated with such a process. Small and intimate groups in which people discuss issues of great personal meaning (like values or spiritual reality and one's own personal struggle to be a better person) have been powerful tools for mobilization and transformation for centuries. The United Method Church was established out of a reform movement in the Anglican Church and spread widely, probably because of John Wesley's use of small groups like these. Small groups have been key to the growth of the so-called “mega-churches”. Small group study circles were an important tool in the spread of Maoist and Leninist ideology in China and the Soviet Union. Yes, small groups can be extremely effective technologies.
Likewise, efforts to focus on values and ideals and goals, and then translate those values into action, is a fundamental process in the entire community organizing or political action strategy. Every decent textbook on community organizing or community activism will devote significant attention to the importance of finding shared values, common visions, and a mission or purpose that all members of a group can embrace and use to guide their activities and the processes in which they attempt to achieve their goals. So, study groups that focus on values and ideals and then work cohesively to implement those values in some sort of service activity are going to have a far better chance of success than groups that do not take their values as seriously or groups that only talk about values and goals without thinking and doing things that implement those values in observable and measurable actions. The Baha’is offer some particular examples of how these techniques can work with materials drawn from Baha’i scripture and associated community writings, and it’s important to share our example, but our methods aren’t especially revolutionary or innovative. The fact that we use Baha’i materials is perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of our processes. But, to some extent, our actions will be held suspect by outside observers to the extent that our efforts are seen as having a priority of proselytizing and gaining more visibility and support for our own religion, rather than purely serving the community simply for the sake of improving the world. It’s sort of an unfair criticism, since any belief system, whether religion or ideology, will naturally seek to show its advantages and attract more adherents, so any effort by any religious or ideological group will have mixed motives, and along with the goals of service and helping humanity will be mixed goals of winning more followers and allies and and cultivating a sympathetic public.
The NSA says there must be a “many-faceted approach” to changing society. For Baha'is, there are three general types of approaches that seem most relevant to the UHJ. One of these is “teaching" (expansion and consolidation) so that there will be more Baha’is; more Baha’is with capacity to help us achieve our goals of creating a better world though an understanding of the Revelation brought to humanity by Baha’u’llah. Another of these is social action. These are essentially activities of service, but they may also be engagement in non-partisan political practice (trying to get persons with power to pass and implement laws and policies that benefit people and promote justice and peace and human rights and well-being). The third is "engagement in the discourses of society” and that essentially means to listen to others and learn from them, and when a receptive audience is found, sharing any insights from the Baha’i scriptures or community practices that might be useful or helpful. The NSA is saying that the three types of approaches are all needed, and they are implying that we ought not neglect any one or two of the approaches by over-emphasizing one or two of the favored approaches.
This seems to me a new thing; expansion and consolidation is now equal to social action and engaging in public discourse. This is a good development. When expansion and consolidation were emphasized over the other aspects, sometimes Baha’is would act insincerely, pretending friendship or genuine interests in the lives of others, but dropping people when it became clear that they did not have much interest in joining the Baha’i Faith. That was a problem, and pointing out that you can engage in social action and public discourse to complement expansion and consolidation should validate a more genuine and sincere outreach by Baha'is, where they establish lasting friendships and alliances with persons of other faiths or no faith who share most of our values and want to work with us on some aspects of transforming society.
The NSA then offers a paragraph about “core activities” and briefly summarizes what these are, characterizing these as “profound and revolutionary”. I think they correctly suggest that genuine friendships that result from such activities will help destroy prejudice and racism. I think that there must be a very large set of combinations of activities that would work, and the current “core activities” are just one sub-set among many that would do a reasonably good job of creating an orientation toward serving humanity and developing deeper lasting friendships, given the material at hand (Baha’i scriptures and associated writings by Baha’is and their allies or like-minded persons combined with the minds of humans living in this time). The emphasis on friendships and service in Baha’i “core activities” brings benefits that are just what we should expect based on the long-known empathy increases and prejudice decreases following efforts by people of different backgrounds to cooperate together so they can to achieve something good.
In a paragraph where the NSA writes about the “spirit of learning" they are evidently referring mainly (or perhaps exclusively?) to learning about what we are accomplishing in our Baha’i communities. Baha’is incorporate into their “core activities” a consistent practice of evaluation and reflection so that they can learn what works and what doesn't work, and the “spirit of learning” is an attitude that processes can be improved if we pay attention to what is making us feel good and what is achieving the sort of result we want, and likewise recognize what seems to be involved with our failures or lack of successes. I think there ought to also be a spirit of learning that pushed Baha’is to look at what others outside the Baha’i Faith are doing. Some people are achieving good results in community development or anti-racism work, and Baha’is ought to take notice. When groups are not succeeding, Baha’is also ought to take notice. Sometimes failures may be consequences of groups not having a perspective that humans are spiritual beings, or lacking a moral perspective that emphasizes the necessity of helping people live up to their potentials. But there may be other problems faced by groups that are not-Baha’i, and some of these may offer us lessons. Learning can work both ways, if Baha'is are to take a role as “teachers” to the world, we should remember that teachers can learn from their students, and secular groups or groups identifying as Christian or Islamic or Buddhist may have valuable lessons for us.
It's worth remembering that ‘Abdu’l-Baha used the term “Baha’i” to describe three different groups of persons. At its broadest, He described Baha’is as persons who generally agreed with the teaching of Baha’u’llah and worked to implement the teachings of this Revelation. By that definition, many persons of other faith traditions and even some persons professing no faith tradition are Baha’is, and may sometimes be doing far more for the Baha’i Revelation than the Baha'is themselves. He also used “Baha’i” as a term for persons who identified with the Baha’i Faith in their self-concept. In that sense, Americans who call themselves “Baha’is" when asked about their religious identity are the Baha’is. But also, there was a habit in the first decades of the 20th century to use the term “Baha’i” or “True Baha’i” to refer to an idealized sense of how a Baha’i ought to live and behave, and by that sense, very few, and perhaps none of us could claim to be Baha’is. In this sense we aspire to be Baha’is or we hope to become Baha'is and work at being Baha’is. I sometimes think our faith community has lost something by seemingly forgetting the first and third ideas of what “being a Baha’i" means, and simply using the prosaic sense of “officially belonging to the religion headquartered in Haifa” as the only meaning of the label.
The NSA draws our attention to the example of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, although they do not specifically mention anecdotes like his insistence that he not reside in a hotel that served only European-Americans and excluded African-Americans, or that he insisted that African-American Baha’is sit closest to him in venues that had traditionally excluded all African-Americans. Anyway, it would be good if someone would produce a book full of examples of how ‘Abdu’l-Baha manifested in his “smallest gestures” and his boldest acts that humanity was one. The NSA letter just refers to “His shining example” and I hope the readers are all familiar with some of those activities and actions.
The NSA then reminds us that most Americans want what we do. They mostly yearn for spirituality. They mostly want genuine justice and prosperity for everyone.
Later, in December (the 8th) of 2017, the NSA congratulated the American Baha’i Community for its successes in promoting awareness of Baha’u’llah in the Bicentenary of His birth. The letter reminded Baha’is to be welcoming and flexible. They reminded us to use wisdom, in the Arabic sense of Hikmat, I think, meaning: give what is wanted, and not too much, and withhold what isn’t wanted until someone is ready. That is, listen to people and know them as they really are, and respond to who they are with attention to their specific needs, rather than just broadcasting your own ideas as you like, regardless of your audience.
On January 31, 2018 the NSA wrote another letter, reminding the Baha’is that we have useful solutions to problems in the world, and we must give society action so that we can make a difference. This letter also described the qualities of a good teacher, and recommended that Baha’i communities try to have these qualities, and they mentioned one quality as genuine love for all people, similar to God's love for people. They also mentioned humility and a concern for common well-being.
The letter of December 25, 2018 written by the NSA, used Shoghi Effendi's characterization of American political life (deceitful and corrupt) and his recommendation that the American Baha’i community “first… regenerate the inward life of their own community, and next… assail the long-standing evils… in the life of [our] nation” to illustrate their point that American Baha’is ought to be putting time and effort into their religious community life and then also working to transform the broader American culture.
In a letter to participants in an African-American-themed Baha’i conference from November 27, 2019 the NSA reminded Black Baha’is of their duties to try to make the community great, and mentioned some of the African-American Baha’is who worked to promote the Faith.
Perhaps the NSA hoped that these letters would make the audience (Baha'is) feel more committed to working to make their communities better, and then also working to make the wider society better. I do feel that after studying all these letters, I'm more motivated to contribute more time to helping my Baha'i Community and my wider community. I'm already volunteering significant quantities of time in some efforts outside the Baha'is community, or with some Baha'i friends, and I my professional life already requires me to work on some of these issues as well. Anyway, the letters has passages that were inspiring, and that is one of the uses of organized religion; it inspires us to act with virtue and find meaning and purpose in activities directed toward service. So, that was time well-spent.
No comments:
Post a Comment