Straight Path to Success

The Straight Path to Success

By John Taylor; 11 December, 2005

Last night I did the technical support for a travelogue PowerPoint
presentation by a teen missionary-in-training who voyaged to Africa
this last summer. Her visuals were very instructive and using only an
electronic camera that takes both stills and video she gave an
excellence picture of what it was like to be in that exotic locale. In
many respects her experience was similar to a Baha'i pioneer; one
piece of advice I would now give to an aspiring pioneer or travel
teacher who wants to reduce culture shock would be simply to go
camping a few times. The greatest adjustment for this young mission
volunteer was the lack of toilet facilities, something you can get
used to on a camping trip right here in Canada. My 11 year old
daughter in two years of scouting already knows more about camping
than I do, having had quite a bit of practice without theory when I
was young. Silvie is already better prepared than this missionary
youth was should she ever desire to travel teach.

The differences of Christians from Baha'is are interesting, though.
For example, the mission youths would offer to sit and pray with the
locals but if they were wearing a bracelet they were instructed to
refuse to pray until the local removed it. Why? These are talismans
given by a local witch doctor and are a part of the tribal religion.
Meanwhile the hardest thing this young teen had during the whole trip
was to part with her eyebrow ring, which was not allowed by the
mission organization, again because it had a different meaning for
their tribal rivals. If it was so hard for her to do without a little
ring on her eyebrow, which I had not noticed until she pointed it out,
I wondered, is her attachment all that different from the tribal
understanding? Are the missionary leaders really enforcing this rule
because of the Africans or for the rectitude of the Western youth?

Over and over the mission youth were told consciously to draw
contrasts between their Western Christianity and the native tribal
faiths. But here I am thinking, "Which would Jesus himself feel the
most comfortable with, mincing, sissified Western teens or the tribal
adherents that they were presuming to educate in religion?" Was not
Abraham, Moses and just about every other prophet, minor and major,
either a tribal leader or a tribal member? Were not the conquerors,
enslavers and persecutors of the Jews, the Persians, Egyptians and
Romans, all citified empire builders, intent on spreading their
culture beyond their own borders? Would Jesus refuse to say a prayer
with someone because of a piece of jewelry that they happened to be
wearing? Would even an ordinary churchgoer here in Canada tolerate it
if the minister told the congregation, "Sorry, we are not going to say
any prayers until everybody takes off such and such an item of
clothing which we deem to be a rival to our own belief system." But
doing that to Black Africans is still considered acceptable. Somehow I
doubt that Jesus has anything to do with such bigotry, especially in
view of his parable of the good Samaritan. If He were running the
organizations operating in His name I do not doubt that it would be
the Africans who would be coming over here as missionaries to teach us
what Jesus knew in His time, including suffering and poverty. Perhaps
most of all, the Africans know prejudice first hand, the false
self-righteousness that put Jesus onto the cross in the first place.

How are we to distinguish the Baha'i faith from its rivals in the
"mission field?" The Faith is not exempt from the factional forces
that tear other belief systems apart. The difference is that each of
us is called upon to take eternal vigilance upon our shoulders, to
build unity in essentials and accept the broadest diversity in all
else; to be conservative about what lasts and liberal about whatever
is temporary.

"It is our primary task to keep the most vigilant eye on the manner
and character of its growth, to combat effectively the forces of
separation and of sectarian tendencies, lest the Spirit of the Cause
be obscured, its unity be threatened, its Teachings suffer corruption;
lest extreme orthodoxy on one hand, and irresponsible freedom on the
other, cause it to deviate from that Straight Path which alone can
lead it to success." (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, 42)

The Guardian made it clear that it is not any outward feature or
belief that makes the Baha'i Faith distinct. Its salient feature is
not immediately obvious, its spirit of problem solving. This is not a
belief or structure, it something that arises on its own, it is an
Umvelt called forth by the meeting of sincere, equal believers.

"True, the Cause as every other movement has its own obstacles,
complications and unforeseen difficulties, but unlike any other human
organization it inspires a spirit of Faith and Devotion which can
never fail to induce us to make sincere and renewed efforts to face
these difficulties and smooth any differences that may and must
arise." (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, 28)

This criterion applies to the institute process, and especially the
Ruhi program. Since mass entry began decades ago in Third World
countries it would have been bigoted to ask less experienced first
world believers to make up the program for institutes, however
impressive the academic qualifications of its potential curriculum
planners. The Ruhi program comes from Columbia, perhaps the most
visible victim of statist sponsored, oil greedy terror in the world
(visible, that is, to all but those who wear the blinders of official,
elite Western press sources). This teaching program works under the
toughest conditions, the reasoning goes, so it will work anywhere. And
such seems to be the case, judging by the record so far.

Of course, there are distinctions between Baha'is and other groups
that are both broader and deeper than the fine ones I just touched
upon. The BIC's latest statement, "The Search for Values in an Age of
Transition," in its eighth paragraph offers the following advice to
the movers and shakers of the world. One can discern here an
important, clear distinction between the ideology of globalism, which
is a carefully devised tool for racist, state sponsored terror, and
the global consciousness that Baha'is uphold.

"We assert that the emerging global order, and the processes of
globalization that define it, must be founded on the principle of the
oneness of humankind. This principle, accepted and affirmed as a
common understanding, provides the practical basis for the
organization of relationships between all states and nations. The
increasingly apparent interconnectedness of development, security and
human rights on a global scale confirms that peace and prosperity are
indivisible -- that no sustainable benefit can be conferred on a
nation or community if the welfare of the nations as a whole is
ignored or neglected. The principle of the oneness of humankind does
not seek to undermine national autonomy or suppress the cultural and
intellectual diversity of the peoples and nations of the world.
Rather, it seeks to broaden the basis of the existing foundations of
society by calling for a wider loyalty, a greater aspiration than any
that has animated the human race. Indeed, it provides the moral
impetus needed to remold the institutions of governance in a manner
consistent with the needs of an ever-changing world."

A few days ago a much milder animadversion to this philosophy, in the
form of an admonishment at a Montreal climate control conference by
the Canadian Prime Minister that "certain nations, including the
United States, would do well to be more globally conscious," resulted
in the Canadian ambassador in Washington being called to the carpet
for undercutting the born again President's program. Events are making
it ever more difficult to separate religious factionalism from
politics, and nationalist politics from the global conscience that
Baha'is have always depended upon as being above the purview of
diplomacy and party politics.

--
John Taylor

badijet@gmail.com