Baha'i that I've encountered are rather insistent that pioneering is not proselytizing. In fact, in their words, they are forbidden to proselytize.
I think pioneering is the same as evangelizing-sharing about one's own beliefs and experiences without regards to others. A self-centered approach to teaching. I wouldn't be surprised if it is inline with proselytizing. Many organization [or those who don't refer to themselves as churches etc from the few I know] tend to share their belief but don't realize it's passively saying, "we don't have enough members, join us" type of thing.
"It is true that Bahá'u'lláh lays on every Bahá'í the duty to teach His Faith. At the same time, however, we are forbidden to proselytize, so it is important for all the believers to understand the difference between teaching and proselytizing. It is a significant difference and, in some countries where teaching a religion is permitted, but proselytizing is forbidden, the distinction is made in the law of the land. Proselytizing implies bringing undue pressure to bear upon someone to change his Faith. It is also usually understood to imply the making of threats or the offering of material benefits as an inducement to conversion. In some countries mission schools or hospitals, for all the good they do, are regarded with suspicion and even aversion by the local authorities because they are considered to be material inducements to conversion and hence instruments of proselytization."
A good example of this is quoting scriptures more than having conversations. I didn't know Bahai does this too until, well, back when [hoping to forget] type of thing. It's not a good technique for "teaching" and sends red flags.
Which leads me to the reason I created this topic. Are teaching and proselytizing mutually exclusive?
They're separate. When you teach, usually the other person wants to learn. There is a dialogue and engagement between the two parties. Proselytizing not so much. It has a "I'll learn about you so I can tell you about myself" type of thing. I notice religious people who seem mature, I guess, don't teach but observe and converse. Once they trust you, it's not instruction [unless both are on the same level and faith] just general conversation of each other's point of view.
Proselytizing can be as simple as, "why don't you come to my church and see what you think."
I don't think they are. As I see it, teaching can be proselytizing if the intent of the teacher is to affect change to the worldview of another, whether or not undue pressure, threats, or coercion are present in the message. If one were to come up to you and give you unsolicited information about their views in the absence of your initial intent to learn something from them, would you consider that teaching or proselytizing?
Proselytizing has a negative connotation. Maybe the teacher is convincing others to take up a worldview or debating depending on the situation and atmosphere of the people and environment in context.
In reading the article and in my interaction with Baha'i here on the forum, I'm led to the conclusion that pioneering is little more than proselytizing under the guise of teaching, or as has been the case in this forum, debate.
Yes. After a year or so, that's exactly the conclusion I'd would take up. Many names for the same concept. Though, just because, it doesn't make it negative in intent. Just, some people who do don't realize how it affects others and/or don't care because it's justified by their religious views.
What are your thoughts? Is pioneering simply teaching? Or is it proselyting?
To me, pioneering just as Shakabuku, evangelizing, etc are just another word for proselytizing. Even the word missionaries have negative historical connotations. If their intent is not to share to bring interest to others so that they engage, I'm sure there are other ways of teaching to interact. That's basically how people learn. It's fishy when there is no two way conversation.
You can say Bahauallah does this or that but if you're not interested in the other party in -any- topic, regardless the intent, the message sends a bad signal. That's not teaching.