A Change of Culture
The recent messages of the Universal House of
Justice have signalled to the Bahá'í world that the Bahá'í
community is undergoing a change of culture. In the Ridvan
message of 2000, they referred to a "critical qualitative difference"
in the Bahá'í community and that the "culture of the Bahá'í community
experienced a change." In the same message they stated that during the
Four Year Plan, the "members of the community came gradually to appreciate
how systematization would facilitate the processes of growth and
development." They then state that this "raising of consciousness was
a huge step that led to . . . a change in the culture of the community."
What then does a change of culture mean and
what processes surround such a change? The culture of a community is defined by
sociologists as "constituting the `way of life' of an entire
society,"[1]
including language, norms of behaviour and systems of belief. Human beings
create the world in which they live. They live in communities and come to a
communal agreement as to the meaning and significance that they will assign to
the entities in their world. These entities may be in the natural world (they
may agree that a certain rock or mountain is sacred), or may be certain
activities (they may determine a particular ritual for funerals) or certain
individuals (they may make one person their ruler, another a priest and another
an outcast). Even such a basic thing as language itself is a creation of human
culture. In this way human beings create their reality. And so "Culture
may be defined as the entire array of symbols, including objects, acts,
utterances, and events, with which reality is apprehended, given meaning and
communicated."[2]
This reality is then passed on from one generation to the next - it becomes
taught to the children as the way the world is and the way they should live
their lives in order to be part of that world. It becomes unquestioned because
it is unquestionable - it is part of "common sense" and is taken for
granted therefore it is usually outside of the area that we question.
It can be seen from the above description of
culture that it is something in which human beings invest a great deal of
energy and time. It can also be discerned that a culture is self-perpetuating
and resistant to change. In general, since the dawn of civilization (in its
literal meaning of the time when human beings have lived in cities), human
prosperity has depended on stability and continuity. Therefore there are many
inbuilt psychological and social mechanisms that resist change. Parts of it may
change gradually over time - British culture that regarded owning slaves as a
normal part of its world in the 17th century, had by the end of the 19th
century come to regard the practice as unethical and inhuman. Under the
influence of catastrophic events such as a major natural disaster or a
conquest, parts of human culture may even change quite quickly. But in general
terms, the core values of a culture do not change. Human culture has an
inherent resistance to change. Since it creates reality, the way the world is,
it has itself usually not been seen and observed, and thus not criticized or
subjected to pressure for change. It was a feature of the nineteenth and
twentieth century that human societies became more reflexive, more able to
examine and criticize their own culture and hence more able to initiate change
in that culture. Even this ability to reflect on our own culture does not
lessen the resistance of cultures to change, however. For example, the realization
that women and men are equal and that women should therefore play an equal role
in society has been with Western societies for almost a century and yet change
in that direction has been painfully slow - the glass ceiling on advancement
still exists for women in most walks of life.
It can thus be seen what a difficult task it is
to change a culture. At present the Bahá'í community is in the middle of a
change of culture initiated by the Universal House of Justice. It is,
therefore, difficult to see the wood for the trees - one cannot discern the
overall features of the change going on when one is in the midst of it. Perhaps
a better way of gaining perspective on the process underway is to look at a
historical example of such a change.
During the early years of Shoghi Effendi's
ministry, he initiated a change in the Bahá'í culture. With the hindsight of
history, we can now discern the main features of that change. During the
ministry of `Abdu'l-Bahá, the Bahá'í community had been run much like a large
family with `Abdu'l-Bahá as the head of the family. Most things were done on a
person-to-person basis. For example, when `Abdu'l-Bahá wanted to implement an
initiative, he would ask an individual to do this. Examples of such initiatives
include `Abdu'l-Bahá's instructions to Agnes Parsons
to organize the Race Amity Conferences in the United States;[3]
his encouraging Corinne True to lead the work on the American temple;[4]
and his direction to John Esslemont to restart the
Bahá'í Council in England.[5]
Shoghi Effendi realized that, for the Bahá'í
Faith to grow, it was necessary to implement the outlines of the Bahá'í
administrative framework that had been given in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh and
`Abdu'l-Bahá - especially in the latter's Will and Testament. Only the most
rudimentary elements of this order were then in existence. In order to bring
about the change that he had envisaged, it was necessary for Shoghi Effendi to
bring about a change of culture. He had to redirect the energies of the Bahá'í
community into a new channel. From the earliest years of his ministry,
therefore, Shoghi Effendi's
communications to the Bahá'í world were focussed on this goal of establishing
the Bahá'í administration. This is the subject of almost all of his major
letters of this period. Those Baha'is who were the most useful to Shoghi
Effendi in this period were those who were the most willing to allow themselves
to be remoulded in accordance with the new culture. A story is told of Amelia
Collins who went to see Shoghi Effendi in Haifa in 1923 wanting to speak to him
about how to become more spiritual and was instead given detailed instructions
on Bahá'í election procedure and consultation.[6]
One result of this initiative of Shoghi Effendi
was that growth and expansion of the Faith ground to a halt for more than a
decade. The Faith even went into decline numerically in these years. When the
requirement to register oneself formally as a Bahá'í in order to participate in
Bahá'í elections was enforced in Iran, many individuals who had previously been
considered Bahá'ís refused to do this and drifted away from the community in
subsequent years. The US Census for 1916 shows 2,884 Bahá'ís, while that for
1926 shows 1,247 Bahá'ís, a decline of over 50% (although part of this decline
is due to a stricter definition of who was a Baha'i, nevertheless it is clear
that there had been no growth in the community). Outside observers even
considered the Bahá'í Faith close to demise. Richards, a British Christian
missionary, writing in 1932, described the Baha'i Faith in the West as being on
the wane ("its day is past") and in England as having
"practically ceased to exist".[7]
Not surprisingly, some Bahá'ís were deeply
unhappy about the changes that Shoghi Effendi was making. They were attached to
the way that the Bahá'í community had been in the first two decades of the 20th
century. They could not see the advantage of jettisoning that culture for the
sake of what appeared to be a remote bureaucratic organization - especially
when the only results of that process appeared to be a marked decline in the
fortunes of the Faith. Looking around themselves they saw the Bahá'ís apathetic
and depressed and felt in themselves disappointment and frustration.
Some Bahá'ís responded to this situation by
drifting away from the Faith. In Britain, for example, several individuals who
were major figures in the community during the ministry of `Abdu'l-Bahá, such
as Wellesley Tudor Pole and Johanna Dawud, drifted
away from the community during these years, unable to come to terms, no doubt,
with the new culture of the Bahá'í community. Some even came out in outright
opposition to Shoghi Effendi's drive to establish the administrative order. In
the United States of America, a prominent and wealthy Bahá'í from the time of
`Abdu'l-Bahá, Ruth White, decided to oppose Shoghi Effendi, basing herself on a
report that `Abdu'l-Bahá had said that the Bahá'í Faith could not be organized.
She tried unsuccessfully to establish that `Abdu'l-Bahá's
Will and Testament, the document on which Shoghi Effendi's authority was based
and which gave many of the instructions for the setting up of the
administrative order, had been forged. Shoghi Effendi referred to her efforts
with the words "I am at a loss to explain that strange mentality that
inclines to uphold as the sole criterion of the truth of the Baha'i Teachings
what is admittedly only an obscure and unauthenticated translation of an oral
statement made by `Abdu'l-Bahá, in defiance and total disregard of the
available text of all of His universally recognized writings."[8]
An even stronger challenge to the new culture
that Shoghi Effendi was trying to create was provided by Ahmad Sohrab and Julie Chanler. They
had set up the New History Society as a way of introducing people gradually to the
Bahá'í Faith. Using the generous financial support given by Mrs Chanler, Ahamd Sohrab had been able to set up large meetings with an
impressive list of speakers at prestigious venues in New York. Sohrab and Chanler were
indignant, however, when it was suggested to them that their activities should
come under the jurisdiction of the appropriate Local Spiritual Assembly (in
other words that they should incorporate themselves into the new culture that
Shoghi Effendi was trying to create). In the end a confrontation with the
National Spiritual Assembly of the United States resulted in their expulsion
from the Faith. They proclaimed themselves the defenders of individual freedom
and rights in the Bahá'í Faith and publically and vehemently protested that the
Bahá'í administration had become an instrument of authoritarian control and
totalitarianism - far removed from the liberal attitude fostered by
`Abdu'l-Bahá.
Sohrab and Chanler claimed
that they had considerable support among the generality of the Bahá'ís but that
these had been silenced by the tyranny of the National Spiritual Assembly. They
certainly did not have considerable support among the Bahá'ís but it may well
be that many Bahá'ís had misgivings about the new culture towards which Shoghi
Effendi was leading the Bahá'í community. The fact is that a change of culture
is unnerving for human beings who have been used to the old culture. They have
felt comfortable in the old culture - it was reality for them. Many Bahá'ís of
that period had grown up in the old culture and so this represented for them
the reality of the Bahá'í Faith. Thus some Bahá'ís in the United States must
have had twinges of doubt when people like Ruth White and Ahmad Sohrab claimed that this new culture was not really the
Bahá'í Faith but rather a distortion being foisted upon them.
It is important, however, to retain a balanced
perspective on these events and not to overemphasize the importance of people
like Sohrab and Chanler.
This dissent did not really enter into the thinking of vast majority of the
Bahá'ís of that time. Indeed, most were completely unaffected by it. Some of
the New York Bahá'ís and a few Bahá'í intellectuals entered into the
discussions but almost all of these rejected Sohrab
and Chanler's position. The dissidents found more
support among the liberal establishment outside the Bahá'í Faith than they
found in the Bahá'í community itself. The vast majority of Bahá'ís whatever
misgivings they may have had, immersed themselves in the work that Shoghi
Effendi had set them and slowly managed to create the Bahá'í administrative
order.
Considered with the wisdom of hindsight,
however, there is no doubt that the direction in which Shoghi Effendi was
leading the Bahá'í community was the right direction if the community was going
to flourish and expand in the future. Speaking sociologically, the charisma of
Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá needed to be routinized
- to be institutionalized - if the Bahá'í Faith was to progress to the next
stage of its development. It could not continue to be run as a large family if
it was going to expand. `Abdu'l-Bahá had spoken of the fact that good ideas,
noble principles and well-considered plans are not enough, "we need an
army to attain victory in the spiritual world."[9]
The new institutions created by Shoghi Effendi, the National Spiritual
Assemblies and Local Spiritual Assemblies, would act in the subsequent decades
as the generals and officers of that army, leading on to the successful spread
of the Bahá'í Faith to all parts of the world.
Returning now to the present-day Bahá'í world,
there is a similar situation to the one that Shoghi Effendi faced at the
beginning of his ministry and again a change of culture is needed. Insofar as
it is possible to visualize the situation at present and to assess the thinking
of the Universal House of Justice in instituting the change, the following
appear to be the main features. The last half of the twentieth century saw the
spread of the Bahá'í Faith to and the establishment of the administrative order
in all parts of the globe. Most of the plans initiated by Shoghi Effendi with
the Ten Year Crusade and continued by the Universal House of Justice in the
Nine Year Plan and subsequent plans were centred on quantitative goals which
resulted in this spread of the Bahá'í Faith to all parts of the world and the
establishment of the Bahá'í administration there. The last phase of this process was completed
with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the establishment of the Bahá'í
administration in the former communist countries during the 1990s.
During these decades, an increasing number of
Bahá'ís have been perceiving that the community lacked spiritual depth. The
spread of the Bahá'í Faith has resulted in a large increase in the number of
Bahá'í communities, but many of these new communities have little understanding
of the Bahá'í Faith and almost no appreciation of the depths of the Bahá'í
teachings. This problem has been most acute in some of the countries of the
Third World where there have been large-scale enrollments
into the Faith, but little success in making these new converts into
knowledgeable and deepened members of the Bahá'í community. It is clear that
the mechanisms that existed in the Bahá'í community previously for the
consolidation of belief of new converts and their transformation into active
members of the Bahá'í community are insufficient for the new situation. After a
time, even the large-scale enrollments themselves
began to dry up as the Bahá'í community tried to grapple with this problem. The
number of conversions has dropped to a very low level and even those who are
converted frequently do not remain in the community. The Bahá'í community as it
currently stands does not appear to be sufficiently inviting to retain those
who do become Bahá'ís. The extent of the problem has been highlighted in a
recent report by the National Teaching Committee[10]
of the United States which points out that the rate of conversions to the
Bahá'í Faith compares favourably with that of other religious movements in the
United States, but the rate of retention of new converts is lower than many.
Various solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of success, but it
is undoubtedly true that there has been no satisfactory resolution of the
problem within the old culture.
Beginning with some earlier plans but coming to
the fore in the Four Year Plan of 1996-2000, the Twelve-Month Plan of 2000-2001
and the current Five Year Plan, the Universal House of Justice has set the
Bahá'ís on a new pathway towards solving the problems facing it. The goals of
these plans are qualitative rather than quantitative. The aim is a
transformation of Bahá'í community life. The following is an attempt to analyse
the change in culture that the Universal House of Justice is seeking to bring
about. The old culture from which the Universal House of Justice has stated
that it is seeking to free the Bahá'í community is one which is dominated by
"the mode of religious activity that characterizes the general society‑‑in which the believer is a member of a congregation,
leadership comes from an individual or individuals presumed to be qualified for
the purpose, and personal participation is fitted into a schedule dominated by
concerns of a very different nature."[11] Clearly, the Universal House of Justice
considers that the Bahá'í community is still tainted by certain characteristics
that it considers should not be part of the Bahá'í Faith and that it is these
characteristics that are holding back the progress of the Faith. These are,
broadly speaking, characteristics which exist in current religious communities
and which Baha'is have brought with them into the Baha'i community.
These unwanted traits include the passivity
implied by the words "member of a congregation." Members of a
congregation play a receptive role - receiving sermons, sacraments and advice
from the priest. They are told what their scriptures mean and how to apply that
to their lives. In some congregations, it is even considered to be within the
priest's powers to hear confessions and pardon sins. Bahá'ís can no longer, in
the new culture, play such a passive role. They must actively participate in
their communities, study and interpret their scriptures for themselves, and
work out their own salvation. Each Bahá'í must be his or her own priest.
The second phrase in the above statement points
to the fact that leadership and decision-making in the new culture should no
longer be the prerogative of ambitious or learned individuals. We live in
societies that are patriarchal -- where leadership is by a small number of
individuals, mainly men. Such societies are hierarchical and, because men are
inherently more aggressive and competitive, they tend to end up at the top of
these hierarchies. And Baha'is have unconsciously imported these tendencies
into their Baha'i communities in many areas, resulting in a situation where a
small number of individuals, usually men, run the community in those
localities. It is clear, however, that the Baha'i community should be one in
which there are no hierarchies of power -- only a hierarchy of opportunities
for service. Any situations of power or hierarchy that exist in the community,
structures that inherently favour men who are more competitive and aggressive,
must come to an end. Decision-making must be through consultative processes and
collective leadership - a community structure that is more conducive to women
and minorities playing an active part in the community.
The third element in the statement of the
Universal House of Justice signals that it is no longer sufficient, in the new
culture, for Bahá'ís to fit in their Bahá'í activities into odd nooks and
crannies of their lives. Their participation in the community must become a
central feature of their personal and family lives. This may be the most
difficult of the three elements for Bahá'ís in the West to implement, with the
enormous and never-ending materialistic demands that modern life places on the
individual.
The new culture towards which the Universal
House of Justice is pointing the way is one in which "groups of Bahá'u'lláh's followers explore together the truths in His
Teachings, freely open their study circles, devotional gatherings and
children's classes to their friends and neighbours, and invest their efforts
confidently in plans of action designed at the level of the cluster, that makes
growth a manageable goal."[12]
The new culture of the Bahá'í community is one in which the individual and the
family take a much more central role. While responsibility for instituting the
process lies with the institutions of the Bahá'í Faith, without the
participation of the generality of the Bahá'ís, the goals set by the Universal
House of Justice cannot be achieved. By its very nature, this new culture
cannot be imposed from on top - it cannot be created by decree. It is the
responsibility of every Bahá'í to initiate or participate in his or her own
community in a coming together of groups of Bahá'ís for the purposes of forming
study circles, instituting devotional gatherings and setting up children's classes.
This process will expose the Bahá'ís to their scriptures, thus increasing the
knowledge and understanding of the community and make more effective teaching
of the Baha'i Faith possible; bring the Bahá'ís together in prayer and
devotions, thus increasing the spiritual depth of the community; and ensure
that children of the community become thoroughly immersed in its teachings and
in the new culture with the result that each succeeding generation of Bahá'ís
will be able to take this process further. All of this activity needs to be put
onto a systematic footing such that it becomes an automatic part of each
individual Bahá'í's life and of their family life.
Furthermore, this new culture should be "a
culture of learning".[13]
This implies that Baha'is must not only learn from their scriptures and from
the collective wisdom of the group in the process of consultative deepening
that occurs in the study circles, but they must also learn from their own
experiences. The Baha'i teachings were never intended to be applied in a
uniform way across the globe, but rather in ways that are specific to local
situations and customs. The Baha'is must therefore be ready to apply the Baha'i
teachings in their own communities and to learn from what happens as a result
of this process -- thus instituting a cycle of learning, action and reflection
that results in a gradually evolving understanding of how the Baha'i teachings
can be applied and what they mean in any given situation.
The type of learning that goes on in the study
circles is not carried out within the usual pedagogic framework. The intention
of the study circle is not to impart learning but to bring about the
transformation of the individual. That is why each phase of the study circle
programme is accompanied by a practice that helps the participants to embed and
bring into their lives the spiritual truths that are taught in the study
circle. Furthermore the ethos of the study circle is very different to that of
the usual educational institution, where there is a teacher, who is presumed to
know, and learners, who do not know. In the study circle all are collaborators
in the process. Although one person leads in taking the participants through
the book, that person is not presumed to know more than the other participants;
the whole group is learning together. This is the reason that, for some, the
books seem childish. Because the intention is for all to be able to
participate, it is necessary to assume the lowest common denominator in terms
of the educational abilities of the participants. And so the attitude of those
who are more advanced educationally should be not "this is so childish, I
am bored and frustrated" but rather "this is an opportunity to be of
service to those who have not had the educational advantages that I have
had". The situation is rather like
that of the speed limit on a road. It may be that an experienced driver could
drive safely at higher speed than the speed limit, but that limit is set for
all drivers, even those who have only just learned to drive. The more advanced
has to drive at a slower speed than he is capable of driving safely for the
sake of the beginner. Similarly, the attitude of a school teacher towards Book
3 of the programme (which is designed to help people to teach children's classes)
should not be "I do not need to do Book 3 because I am a trained
teacher" but rather "I look forward to doing Book 3 and hope that my
experience as a teacher will contribute to the group's learning."
The new culture should also be "a culture
of growth." The Universal House of Justice has stated that in the new
culture:
a. The Baha'is will "see their duty to
teach as a natural consequence of having accepted Baha'u'llah" and,
quoting `Abdu'l-Baha, will "consecrate every fleeting moment of their lives
to the diffusion of the divine fragrance and the exaltation of God's holy
Word." In such a situation, their hearts become so enkindled "with
the fire of the love of God that whoever approaches them feels its
warmth." Thus teaching the Baha'i Faith becomes "the dominating
passion" of their lives.
b. "Fear of failure finds no place. Mutual
support, commitment to learning, and appreciation of diversity of action are
the prevailing norms." In other words that the support coming from these
transformed communities mitigates any fears that the individual may have and
the "culture of learning" that has been instituted means that every
teaching effort that is made becomes an opportunity for learning and so, even
if it fails, it is not a wasted effort. A wide variety of efforts should be
initiated at the local level and then as these initiatives produce results,
lessons should be learned and either the existing initiative should be revised
or new initiatives devised.[14]
Another feature of the new culture is that the
activities initiated in each local community should be systematic and
sustained. Although it is important to learn from trial and error, and the
precise way in which certain activities are carried out may be radically
altered over time, yet the overall process of developing study circles,
devotional programmes, children's classes, teaching activities, service
activities, etc. must be systematically implemented and sustained. Moreover the
responsibility for doing this rests equally upon the individual, the Assemblies
and the clusters.
The extent of the culture change involved here
should not be underestimated. The change initiated by Shoghi Effendi at the
beginning of his ministry was one that was far-reaching, but at least it was
easily understandable. The overall concept of establishing an administration
was easily comprehended and there were models in the wider community to which
the Bahá'ís could turn, although of
course many of the features of the Bahá'í administration were unique and not to
be found elsewhere (one could say that even up to the present day, some aspects
of this change such as the process of consultation and of Bahá'í elections have
not been fully understood and put into effect by the Bahá'í community). The
change of culture initiated by the Universal House of Justice is, however, more
difficult to grasp because there are no precedents for the kind of community
that it is seeking to create. It is a step into the unknown, where there are no
models that can be used - thus it is largely a matter of trial and error.
Indeed it may appear strange to some to say
that this change of culture is a change that seeks to create communities where
individual Baha'is are initiating activities and decisions are made at a
"grass-roots" level, and at the same time to say that this change is
a process that is being initiated by the Universal House of Justice and is thus
being directed from the top. However, one has to consider the question: how
else would such a change of culture occur in a community that is used to
receiving its directions from the top and is prevented, by the concept of the
Covenant, from launching a grass-roots rebellion in order to achieve such a
change? Moreover, it is clear that the Universal House of Justice also sees
itself as a participant in the "culture of learning", noting the
initiatives that have worked in one part of the world and passing this
information on to other parts of the world that might benefit.[15]
And perhaps, in the future, once the present guidance has been assimilated, the
Universal House of Justice will issue further guidance as to the sort of
culture that it envisages.
The change of culture that the Universal House
of Justice seeks to being about is, to a large extent, also a change of
identity. Baha'is need to see themselves differently -- a new vision of what it
means to be a Baha'i. This new vision involves Baha'is envisaging a new type of
community in which they are actively involved, a new type of community that is
open to the outside world, a new way of life that puts the Baha'i Faith at the
centre of their lives. But this new vision need not be, and indeed should not
be, just a mental process. It is precisely by participating in the processes
that the Universal House of Justice have set in train (study circles,
devotional programmes and children's classes) that this new vision can be
formed in the mind of each Baha'i. Thus it is through a change in behaviour
that the Baha'is can change their vision and hence their identity.
There can be little doubt that just as the
change of culture brought about by Shoghi Effendi was necessary for the Baha'i
Faith to expand from the position that it was in the early 1920s, the change of
culture which the Universal House of Justice wants to bring about is similarly
necessary if the Baha'i community is going to expand now. For many decades now,
most of the Baha'i activities in most communities have been on the shoulders of
a small number of individuals. If large numbers of people are going to come
into the Baha'i community, that situation cannot continue. The Baha'i community
does not have a paid priesthood and the only way that community activities can
be sustained if large numbers of people are to become Baha'is is by the
abandonment of the model of passive congregations led by a small number of
individuals and the adoption of the new culture of active and whole-hearted
participation in the community by all Baha'is -- and also by the concept of
groups of communities, the clusters, assisting and interacting with each other.
The sort of community which the Universal House
of Justice envisages is one that encompasses characteristics that are often
thought to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Thus for example these
communities should be both democratic and decentralized and yet also subject
ultimately to the guidance and authority of the Bahá'í administrative order;
there should be individual freedom and individual initiative, but individuals
are also expected to act maturely and with self-discipline; the community should
be united, and yet open to all. In the past, communities have been most united
in the face of a threat from an "other", now the same or higher level
of unity must be reached without any external threat, a community must be
created that is both united and open to all.
Now, undoubtedly in all this, many Bahá'ís have
misgivings. They feel uncomfortable in the new culture and look longingly back
at the old culture - the Bahá'í Faith they knew and loved. Some Bahá'ís have,
as in the early days of the ministry of Shoghi Effendi, drifted away from the
Faith, because they do not feel comfortable in the new culture. Others have
even opposed the new culture, claiming once again that their freedom and
individual rights have been violated. They are even using the same quotations
that Ahmad Sohrab used in presenting their case. As
before, their numbers are minuscule and the majority of Bahá'ís have remained
completely unaffected by them. Such individuals are, however, very vocal on the
Internet, which has enabled them to have a voice far out of proportion to their
numbers or importance. They have also found a platform, as Ahmad Sohrab did, in the liberal establishment. Still others do
not yet see or understand the change in culture that is being called for,
regard the instruments that have been created for its achievement (devotional
meetings, study circles junior youth groups and children's classes) from the
viewpoint of the old culture and therefore do not see the potential for change.
Therefore they do not wholeheartedly support these instruments for change.
In 2002, The Universal House of Justice made it
clear: "Where Bahá=í
communities are unable to free themselves from an orientation to Bahá=í life that has long outlived whatever value it
once possessed, the teaching work will lack both the systematic character it
requires, and the spirit that must animate all effective service to the
Cause."[16]
Of course it is early days yet -- it took more
than a decade for the change in culture that Shoghi Effendi instituted to
become established in the Baha'i community. But the tide is turning. Guided by
the Counsellors and the National Spiritual Assemblies, the Baha'is are
beginning to follow the instructions of the Universal House of Justice -- and
increasingly it is those Baha'is who have previously played a passive
"congregational" role in the community, who have not been leaders in
the community, the women and the youth, who are responding and initiating the
activities that the Universal House of Justice has asked for. Although they may
not yet be able to visualize how the Bahá'í community will look in its new
cultural manifestation and they may not yet discern any benefits from the new
order, nevertheless they are pressing ahead with the process. The direction
towards which the Universal House of Justice is pointing the Bahá'ís is clearly
the next logical step in the development of the Bahá'í community and as Bahá'í
communities respond to the call for a change of culture, it can be anticipated
that the features of the new culture will gradually become clearer.[17]
[1]. Unwin
Hyman Dictionary of Sociology (ed. David Jary and
Julia Jary), 2nd ed., Enderby,
Leics.: Bookmart, 1999, p. 139
[2]. Robert Wuthnow,
"Comaparative Ideology," International
Journal of Comparative Studies 22 (1981), p. 121
[3]. Gayle Morrison, To Move
the World, Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1982, pp. 134-6
[4]. Bruce Whitmore, The
Dawning Place, Wilmette, Ill.:
Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1984, p. 31
[5]. Moojan Momen, John E. Esslemont, London: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, p. 21
[6]. The writer first heard this
story about Amelia Collins during a talk by Counsellor Leo Niedermeyer
in Lisbon on 20 July 1981. It is given in substantially the same form in A. Q. Faizi, Milly: a Tribute
to Amelia Collins, Oxford: George Ronald, pp. 3-6. Of course, it may be
that Shoghi Effendi's reply to Amelia Collins was more pertinent than it
appears, for the workings of the Bahá'í administrative order are also mystical
and assist in the spiritual development of the individual, see Moojan Momen,
"Mysticism and the Bahá'í Community", Lights of `Irfan, vol. 3 (2002) pp. 107-20
[7]. J. R. Richards, The
Religion of the Baha'is, London: Society for the Promotion of Christian
Knowledge, 1932, chapters 9 and 18
[8]. Shoghi Effendi, World
Order of Bahá'u'lláh, Wilmette, IL: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1991, p. 4
[9]. `Abdu'l-Bahá, Promulgation of
Universal Peace, Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1982, p. 250
[10]. National Teaching Committee
of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá=ís of the United States, Issues
Pertaining to Growth, Retention and Consolidation in the United States, 12
December 1999
[11]. Letter of the Universal House
of Justice to an individual, dated 22 August 2002
[12]. Letter of the Universal House
of Justice to an individual, dated 22 August 2002
[13]. Letter of the Universal House
of Justice to all National Spiritual Assemblies, dated 17 January 2003
[14]. The Universal House of
Justice, letter dated 9 January 2001
[15]. "This consideration was
an important element in the drafting of the relevant sections of the document
'Century of Light', to which you make reference. These passages of the document
seek to acquaint believers everywhere with the profound change in Bahá'í
culture that the preceding decades of struggle, achievement and disappointment
made possible and that was capitalized on through the agency of the Four Year
Plan." (The Universal House of Justice to an individual, dated 22 August
2002)
[16]. Letter of the Universal House
of Justice to an individual, dated 22 August 2002
[17]. A first draft of this paper
appeared on an e-mail list in February 2003. It has subsequently been published
in Living Nation and translated and published in a few languages. I am
grateful to numerous people who commented on this paper in that list and subsequently
by private correspondence and thus helped to shape the current (July 2011)
version of the paper. To name any individuals would be to run the risk of
omitting other important contributors.