Monday, January 19, 2009

Interests of my House of Justice: Something I might have missed

Now I'll look at the response of the House of Justice to the US National Spiritual Assembly's 2007 Annual Report. I'm looking for statements of its interests that might be used as arguments for discouraging people from promoting their own ideas and pursuing their own initiatives. The only statement I see that might be used that way is this:

"However, what is essential is for such roles and functions to take shape within the framework for action that has been elaborated in the message dated 27 December 2005 to the Conference of the Continental Boards of Counsellors."

Apart from that, another argument might be that the interests stated in this message seem to be exclusively about the framework for action. A person might use that as an argument that the House of Justice has no interest in anyone doing anything outside of the framework.

Going back to the recommendations in the report, they all look to me like recommendations for regional and local institutions, and cluster agencies. None of them look like recommendations to individuals. The House of Justice is responding to recommendations for institutions and cluster agencies. Here is the full context of what it says about roles and functions taking shape within the framework for action:

"In this light, what must be recognized is that the most recent sharp decline from some 2,000 to 1,000 annual enrollments occurred between 1997 and 2003, a period during which an appreciation for the provisions of the global Plans had not yet been fully gained in the United States and, as a result, emphasis was being given to certain kinds of measures to proclamation through the media, to initiatives designed specifically for and by Local Spiritual Assemblies, to inspirational appeals intended to capture the believers' imagination and stir them to action, and to extensive analyses of diverse topics. It should be clear, then, that a return to such measures will not serve the needs of the American Baha'i community. This is not to suggest that there is no room for proclamation in the plans of action, for example, for a cluster in which the institute process is sufficiently advanced and in which new souls need to be attracted to firesides and core activities. Nor is it to diminish the importance of the evolving role Local Assemblies play in the new realities being created at the grassroots. However, what is essential is for such roles and functions to take shape within the framework for action that has been elaborated in the message dated 27 December 2005 to the Conference of the Continental Boards of Counsellors."

What I understand from that is that it wouldn't help for institutions and cluster agencies to go back to emphasizing the kinds of measures that were being emphasized between 1997 and 2003.

The House of Justice says explicitly that this does not exclude proclamation in the plans of action.

It also looks to me like what the House of Justice is discussing here is the plans of action for clusters, not for individuals. It says that it is essential for the plans of action for clusters to take shape within the framework for action.

Next: What exactly is the framework for action?

No comments: