A Change of Culture
Exported from Holy-Writings.com on 2026-06-18 - 1 clipping

Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Moojan Momen, A Change of Culture, bahai-library.com.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

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
1.
Unwin Hyman Dictionary of Sociology (ed. David Jary and Julia Jary), 2nd ed., Enderby, Leics.: Bookmart,
1999, p. 139
. Robert Wuthnow, "Comaparative Ideology," International Journal of Comparative Studies 22 (1981), p. 121

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

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

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

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

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

9.
`Abdu'l-Bahá, Promulgation of Universal Peace, Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1982, p. 250

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
Committee10 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

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

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

12.
Letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual, dated 22 August 2002

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:

13.
Letter of the Universal House of Justice to all National Spiritual Assemblies, dated 17 January 2003

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

14.
The Universal House of Justice, letter dated 9 January 2001

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

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)

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

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.
-- A Change of Culture (Used by permission of the curator)