Creation And Fall

Dr. Darrol Bryant: We don't have a structured agenda for this morning. However, I would suggest that we discuss the Unification movement under two headings: What is Unification as a sociological phenomenon? What is Unification as a theological posture? I have a lot of confidence that wherever we begin, every thing will come out in the end. Why don't we just ask if there are particular questions that we would like to hear the young Unification theologians speak to.

Dr. Rodney Sawatsky: We had a conversation last night about the history of the movement and some aspects of Rev. Moon's story. I found it very interesting. Is everyone already familiar with that material?

Dr. Eugene Klaaren: It's certainly not familiar to me. In fact, I don't have the faintest idea at this point of what Rev. Moon has to do with you folks. I'm serious. I haven't heard his name mentioned. I saw his picture on the wall in the kitchen, but I don't understand what Rev. Moon means to you. I read the introduction to your Divine Principle. The introduction announces that the truth has arrived in the world and it has arrived through Rev. Moon. I'm exaggerating perhaps, but I really do not see how Rev. Moon relates to this movement. Does anybody want to enlighten me?

Lynn Kim: Okay. Rev. Moon was born in North Korea. His family converted to Christianity when he was about nine or ten. Before that they had been part of the basic Korean structure: Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism. I understand that he himself had a very powerful conversion. I think it was connected with the healing of a child or something like that. Then he became well known for his participation in youth groups, prayer meetings, etc. He claims that when he was sixteen, he had a very powerful vision of Jesus on Easter morning. He then spent seven to nine years in intense spiritual search and study of the Scriptures. During part of this time he was studying electrical engineering in Japan. I met one of his close friends from that time who said that although he was studying electrical engineering, there were always three Bibles open in his room: one in English, one in Japanese and one in Korean. Each one was marked everywhere. At the end of that seven to nine years of search, and some teaching, he wrote the Divine Principle.

Dr. Sawatsky: Did he write that book?

Lynn Kim: No, not the Black Book version. During the first period of his ministry, Rev. Moon taught only orally. The first members heard the Principle in his sermons in which he was speaking about the Bible and interpreting sections of the Bible in relation to today. After teaching in North Korea from 1948 into 1950, he was imprisoned for about two and a half, almost three years. Then, during the Korean War, he was liberated; and it was in Pusan, as a refugee, that he first began writing a very brief, general version of the Divine Principle. *

Dr. Sawatsky: Then it seems to be the case that Moon's life precedes the Divine Principle. He influenced people through his oral teaching before he wrote anything down.

Lynn Kim: Yes, that's right.

Dr. Bryant: But I also get the impression that more is involved. Sometimes it sounds as if you're saying that the Divine Principle is "inspired." Yet I think I've heard a couple of people say that the Book doesn't matter; it's the Principle, not the Book that's important. You seem to think that in the writing of the Divine Principle, the Principle can be missed.

Lloyd Eby: I think that's true, actually.

Dr. Henry Vander Goot: Hold on! The whole point of the introduction to the Divine Principle is to let you know that this book contains the Truth! Wow! Now if it is the truth, it can't have missed the Principle. It can't be riddled by contradictions.

Lloyd Eby: We're much less bothered by this problem, I think, than the traditional book religions. One of the reasons we're less bothered by it is because of our understanding of the Divine Principle and our relationship to it. That understanding is mediated by Rev. Moon, and our relationship to Rev. Moon is extremely important. If you ask about the relationship of Rev. Moon to this movement, you'll get some kind of official answer. The more interesting question concerns the relationship of Rev. Moon to any particular member of this movement. I think you'll get as many different answers as there are members.

Dr. Klaaren: Is that really so?

Lloyd Eby: Our understanding of the Principle changes. I started out understanding the Principle as an external object. Then, gradually, with age and with deeper experiences with other people, with God, with Rev. Moon, and with the movement in general, I began to see the Principle as embodying the truth about many things. I would say that there are some problems in the matter of translation because the Divine Principle was written in Korean. Maybe words are mistranslated here and there. But that's not a serious problem. It's not a problem at all.

Dr. Bryant: I want to get back to your assertion that Rev. Moon means something different to each of you.

Lloyd Eby: I would say that our relationship with Rev. Moon varies with one's depth of understanding and with the length of time one has been in the movement. That's the best way of putting it.

Dr. Bryant: I'm not sure that that's very satisfactory. But you mentioned before that there's an official answer to the question "Who is Rev. Moon?" What would be the official answer?

Lloyd Eby: I think the official answer would be, and has been, that he is a prophet, a channel through whom God speaks.

Dr. Vander Goot: It seems to me that's a weak explanation. In the introduction to the Divine Principle it says that God in the fullness of time has sent His messenger to resolve the fundamental questions of life, and His messenger is Rev. Moon. The Divine Principle isn't just a systematic reflection on the meaning of faith; it claims to be a revelation from the Divine Being. So the sense in which Rev. Moon is a prophet or messenger is very special. Rev. Moon is not just a prophet in a general sense, but in the very specific sense that he announces and discloses the divine will.

Dr. Bryant: Isn't part of our problem our different understandings of the word "prophet?" Some say that Rev. Moon is a prophet as Moses is a Prophet: Moses reveals the Law. Others say no, it's not like that at all. Moon is a prophet as John the Baptist is a prophet in that both announce that "the time is at hand." Rev. Moon doesn't seem to be a prophet as Luther and Calvin are prophets; he's not a reformer. He's not a prophet like Amos: a prophet who reminds people that they are straying away from the Covenant. So I think of Moses and John the Baptist as analogies for how you understand Rev. Moon. Would you people agree?

Farley Jones: I don't think so. I think that the reason we hesitate to explain the role of Rev. Moon is because it's somewhat radical. We believe that he is coming in the role of the Third Adam. W e believe that God is about to initiate a new history, a new creation, a restoration of the original ideal which was lost at the time of Adam. Since then God's work in history has been the reestablishment of the Adamic position, the position of Adam and Eve as the True Parents of mankind. Our belief is that Jesus came in that role, but as it says in the Divine Principle, because He was rejected by the people of His age, He was not able to fulfill His role completely. So we see Rev. Moon as chosen to fulfill that role. However, we are also aware that Rev. Moon's success is somewhat conditional. As in Jesus' case, Rev. Moon has to fulfill certain conditions. Those around him have to support him so that he can fulfill that role. We believe that through him, and through his efforts, God is working to establish a new family of mankind which will be the fulfillment of God's original ideal. So, in that sense, he's all the things that people have said he is. He is a prophet, he's the founder of the Unification Church; but more than that, we see him in the role of potential True Parent of mankind, and his wife, the feminine side, as the True Mother of mankind.

Dr. Bryant: Now, that's the strongest statement I've heard about Rev. Moon. I saw that written in the Divine Principle, but in talking to several people about it in the last few days, I've never heard anyone say as clearly as you have that Rev. Moon is potentially the Third Adam.

Farley Jones: People are reluctant to say it because it is such a strong statement. It's shocking, and they're afraid it's going to be alienating. And so they're hesitant. The reason I said it is because I assumed that at some point you're all going to read the Divine Principle; and if you're going to read it, you're going to find it out anyway, (laughter)

Lynn Kim: Yes, I hesitated, but I'm grateful it's said because otherwise you're going to be asking and we're going to be avoiding. You were asking about it very clearly last night, but the mood at our table was one of avoidance. I hesitated to break the kind of sidestepping that was going on.

Dr. Herbert Richardson: Before we all start jumping around, I want to say that I don't find that to be a very strong statement at all. That is, it's very dramatic, but from one point of view it's a little bit like somebody announcing that he's the first "Ishkabibel." (laughter) Everyone might be surprised, but first we have to know what that means. To put it in technical theological terms, I don't know any place in the Christian tradition where there's much in vested, on a confessional level, in some particular conception of Adam. It's certainly not the case that "Second Adam" is an important title for Jesus. To some extent, the Unification Church is saying that Jesus was a Second Adam to clear the way for Moon to be a Third Adam, but I don't think that "Second Adam" Christology is important in the New Testament or in the teaching of the Church. Farley's statement may affect us emotionally, but theologically and logically, I don't see that it carries much weight.

Dr. Vander Goot: Well, maybe not specifically, but the concept to which the term refers is very important. I mean, there is one Redeemer figure in the history of Christian theology. There is a fundamental difference there between the theology of the Second Adam, which may not be important in Christian theology, and the idea of more than one Redeemer.

Dr. Richardson: Just this point, though. The formula "Redeemer figure" is a theological construction. It's not in Scripture, for example, and it's not in the classical theological tradition. It's what the theologian thinks up as a general category in order to assimilate a number of terms -- Second Adam, Messiah, etc. But there's no necessity, it seems to me, that we do this. We might readily leave them separate for awhile and let them each have their own intrinsic development before we start comparing them. That's my point.

Dr. Bryant: I think you're anticipating that we'll jump all over Farley and anyone else for having said what he said. I don't think that's going to happen. I think that he gave a helpful clarification of the question so that we don't go around thinking that Moon is like John Calvin or like Amos or Mohammed or any other figure. This other category, Adam, which at this moment is just another category, may help us. But there is another way to learn about Rev. Moon. I keep hearing so much here about the experience of the family. I think there's an experiential content that's every bit as important as this theological articulation and argumentation. My impression is that it's absolutely crucial for us to see these two elements in relation to each other.

Lloyd Eby: I think what's sometimes interpreted by an outsider as avoidance is actually honesty. Before I ever came to the Church, I heard that Rev. Moon was supposed to be the Messiah. I thought that was nonsense. And when I first heard him speak, my honest impression was that he was simply a great preacher and a very courageous man. It so happened that he had to stand up to a very angry crowd that night. A few months later my relationship to him changed and he became my spiritual teacher, my guru. But I still didn't think of him as more than that, and I was willing to pursue that relationship for awhile. If someone had asked me at that time who Rev. Moon was, that's what I would have told them. A little later on, he became, in a sense, my employer, which sounds like a step down from guru, but is actually (laughter) a step up in the sense that it made my relationship with him more normal and more human. At the present time I would say that my relationship with him is still developing. He's becoming, for me, some kind of father: my adopted father. The motive that has led me through these transformations has been a desire to deepen my relationship with God. At each step of the way, the change in my relationship to Rev. Moon has been a reflection of that fundamental urge. So if you want an honest answer from me, I can't tell you that Rev. Moon is the Messiah; but maybe that'll turn out to be the case. It's certainly a possibility. I would say that I now see him as my adopted father.

Dr. Elizabeth Clark: It is my impression that the Unification Church says that one reason why Jesus did not fulfill whatever it was people thought he was going to fulfill is because he did not marry and have a family. Rev. Moon is now fulfilling that requirement, and preaching a new idea about the family. Would someone talk about that?

Joe Stenson: I think that in order to talk about the idea of the family and its relationship to Jesus as someone who also comes in the position of Adam, you have to talk about the creation of Adam and the original intention of God that was lost in the Fall. In answer to the question "Who is Rev. Moon?" anyone can say, "Well, he's the Messiah or he's this or he's that." But a complete answer must explain what we understand by that. I think in order to say that Rev. Moon is in the position of a True Parent, or in the position of True Adam, we must explain what that means. W e must explain what the Creation means to us, who Adam and Eve are to us, what was lost at the Fall, what Jesus restored and failed to restore, and what Rev. Moon can do, or is in the position to do.

Dr. Bryant: Okay, then. Sketch the theological context.

Joe Stenson: Now this is my perception of the context of our belief. We believe the Adam and Eve story in Genesis. We understand it as the story of God's intention for mankind. God creates a male and a female. He creates the male part of mankind and the female part of mankind as equal and complementary. Adam and Eve, when they were created, were to grow and develop to become perfect children of God. Adam and Eve were not created perfect, but were created to grow to perfection. During the time of growth, Adam and Eve had free will. At some point during Adam and Eve's growth process, they were exposed to the influence of evil which is symbolized in the Genesis account by the serpent whom we interpret, and I think Christian theology interprets, as Satan. Through their relationship with Satan, with the serpent, the Fall of man occurs: a fall that has its roots in the misuse of love.

Genesis uses archetypes and symbols to tell the story. For example, Genesis says that they ate an apple. What does that mean? To us, it's a symbol of sexuality, of the misuse of sex. Satan, the serpent, seduces Eve and Eve succumbs. This is, in a sense, a spiritual Fall. Then Eve, realizing what has happened and realizing that her intended mate was not Satan, but Adam, seduces Adam. She wants to fulfill their intended relationship. However, Adam and Eve's sexual union constitutes, at that point, a misuse of love. Their love is centered on themselves rather than centered on God. It's not for the fulfillment of God's purpose. This, then, is the Fall of humankind. It's primarily a sexual Fall and a misuse of God's love, love which we would call "principled" love.

In order to restore principled love, we must get new parents. Our first parents, Adam and Eve, were claimed by Satan. The progeny of these parents, then, always have the potential of being claimed by Satan. Thus the history of mankind has been the multiplication of the progeny of Adam and Eve, a progeny claimed by Satan. In order for Adam's progeny to be restored to God, then, a figure must come who can reverse the whole process. A figure must come in the position of Adam to become the new parent of mankind. Jesus is in that position. When Jesus came as the new Adam, He was to fulfill certain conditions that were lost when Adam and Eve fell. However, because He wasn't accepted, but was rejected and killed, He didn't have the opportunity to completely fulfill His mission. So then the providence of God was extended and more of a foundation prepared in order for another figure to come in that position.

Lynn Kim: I think that was pretty thorough. There are a couple of things I would like to add concerning our concept of the immaturity of Adam and Eve, and our use of the term "perfection." The term "perfection" refers to a relationship with God. A perfect man is someone who loves God so much that his heart resonates with God's heart. A perfect man would feel what God feels for others. So in the beginning, then, God's desire was for a complete love relationship: a relationship so profound for Adam and Eve that it would have been impossible for them to separate from God. It was not impossible in terms of a philosophical notion of free will, but impossible because of the depth of the relationship. While they were growing in this relationship they were in a vulnerable position. This is why there was the commandment "Do not eat of the fruit." When you're not yet in a complete love relationship with God, it's possible for love to go in another direction, to be come self-centered or directed to something other than God. I think we've all experienced this possibility in our own lives. So, then, that's how the Fall could happen. Man, through his freedom, a freedom given by God primarily because of the relation ship He wants to have with man, falls.

Dr. Sawatsky: If you had a sexual Fall, do you have a sexual salvation?

Lynn Kim: That's another thing I want to discuss. The one thing that Joe said that I would not agree with and would want to clarify is the use of the word "sexual." We teach that the Fall comes about from a misuse of love. Adam and Eve were to become one with God in love, but the love became directed toward Satan, and became a self-centered love between them. Before Adam became a perfect man and one with God, and before Eve became a perfect woman and one with God, they united together. They did not as yet know God completely within their own lives, so when they united together, they were not able, in a sense, to give God to their children. God was not in them, so God could not be in their children. They could not give their children what they didn't have.

Dr. Sawatsky: Let's follow that through. Is all sexual activity of imperfect man fallen?

Lynn Kim: To us, sexuality is the vehicle through which original sin is passed on. The original sin is the separation from God on the level of love which is then multiplied through sexuality. It's not -- how can I say it -- that we hate sex. It's not that. It has a much deeper significance.

Dr. Bryant: But it's more than a symbol. It is indeed the way that sin is perpetuated in history, according to your beliefs.

Diana Muxworthy: I think it's important that within the principle of creation -- for me the principle of creation is the essence of the Divine Principle -- man fell, and that the whole point of history is to restore him. So it's essential that we understand that we are co-creators in restoration. The center of the Divine Principle is its understanding of why we were created, under what laws. I know it was most confusing to me when I first heard the Divine Principle. What does this mean to me when they speak of fulfilling God's purpose? What is my purpose? To know that I had to fully understand what was meant by fulfilling the Three Blessings.

The purpose of creation is the fulfillment of the Three Blessings, the Three Blessings as they are laid out in Genesis. In our understanding, the first blessing, the perfection of individuality, aims at oneness with God. You love as God loves, you think as God thinks. It is a very deep experience that we all taste at some time in our life, or can if we try. Then on that foundation of perfected individuality in tune with God comes the creation of the family, the second blessing, the multiplication and fruitfulness commanded in Genesis. When you have perfected your individuality so that your heart is one with God's heart and your mind is one with God's mind, and your mind and body are integrated, then you can create a family that is in tune with the perfection in you and in your mate. So these are the first two blessings. The third blessing is dominion over creation. In Genesis it says that because you are so connected with God's love your dominion over the creation or your use of all the natural resources is in tune with the love that God has for those resources. The Three Blessings have to be understood if one wants to understand the Unification idea of creation.

Linda Mitchell: When we refer to the Three Blessings we refer specifically, as Diana explained, to the Genesis account. The Three Blessings are more or less God's intention for mankind. In Genesis they are expressed in these words: "Be fruitful, multiply, and take dominion over the earth." As Diana was explaining before, we believe that these words represent God's intention.

Dr. Bryant: Can you say something about the implications of the Three Blessings for the family and the community? I take it, for example, that family relates to what we were talking about last night concerning spiritual mothers and fathers, and to the development of a parental heart as a spiritual discipline that would precede getting married and having children.

Lynn Kim: Right now, especially in America, we're in a transition period because of our long-term connection with the fallen history of humankind and because of the obvious imperfection in ourselves. We're desperately seeking to know God and to bring our bodies into harmony with our minds. So the Unification members are in a voluntary period of separation of husbands and wives in order to come to know God and bring about the unity of our bodies and our minds before we have children. This is the period we're in now in America. But the next step, which is very important to all of us, will be the marital relationship.

Tom Selover: It is important to understand what we mean by marriage. It is not the typical get-together that closes the couple off from everyone else.

Joe Stenson: Individual and family relationships are the way in which God works with us. That's the idea.

Dr. Sawatsky: To get back to what you were saying before, are you implying that until you feel that you have attained a certain level of perfection, a oneness with God, you will be celibate? Will the couples that are currently married abstain from sexual activity until a certain point?

Lynn Kim: Many do.

Dr. Sawatsky: It wouldn't be required? Would there be a period in which sexuality is set aside for a reason? A number of times I have asked about married couples and people seem a little hesitant about replying. What I'm catching is that the question is not particularly important here because few of you are married, and those who are don't have their mates here.

Farley Jones: I'm married.

Dr. Sawatsky: Your mate is living with you?

Farley Jones: Well, right now, she's travelling frequently to visit church centers. She's doing itinerary work on behalf of the Church. But basically, we're a married couple, a normal man and wife. We have two children. Now that doesn't mean my wife and I have achieved any kind of perfection. What it does mean is that before we were married in the Church, we demonstrated our faith for a period of time and were evaluated by superiors in the Church as having achieved sufficient spiritual maturity for marriage. So even though we teach that the ideal is for an individual man and an individual woman to achieve a state of maturity and oneness with God before marriage, we're also aware of the practical necessity to continue the human race. Because we are all from a fallen background, our ideals are going to be realized only progressively and not all at once.

Dr. Bryant: But when you say before marriage, don't you really mean before sexual intercourse? If, as Lynn said, you see the Fall as misdirected love, why must you see the Fall as specifically sexual? Why not use another category? For example, idolatry. Original sin is idolatry, not sexuality.

Lynn Kim: That's the interpretation of it -- sin as sexuality -- that I was afraid would come up when Joe was using the word "sexual." The term is misleading. We're saying original sin is the misuse of love. Call it idolatry; I don't care what you call it. Essentially, it's not loving God first.

Dr. Richardson: Just an observation. What you say is different from what Farley says and what Joe says, and I would very much like to hear what Farley would say on this point. He started to say something and you said, "Well, I was afraid such an interpretation would come up." One of the things that's most interesting to us is to hear Joe say something that is different from what you're saying and to hear Farley say something that is different from both. It's in hearing many different views that the reality and richness of the religious tradition is seen.

Dr. Sawatsky: Indeed. This is what is fascinating to hear: the range of interpretation within the Unification movement.

Diana Muxworthy: It's also interesting because Joe is not married, Lynn is married but without children, and Farley has children. Maybe they each have a different experience of the Principle.

I don't think that it's Unification teaching that people are supposed to become perfect in their relationship with God before they marry. I think marriage is part of the process of perfecting the relationship with God. Having children is also part of the process, since your children educate you too. If you have children and have trouble and yet you love them unconditionally, you can sympathize more with God. You can put yourself in God's position and understand how God relates to you.

Dr. Sawatsky: But there's still some kind of priority placed on personal development in this period of abstinence and preparation.

Lynn Kim: I didn't mean to keep pushing this because I don't think we are hung up on this sex thing. But sex and religion do go hand in hand, (laughter)

Dr. Sawatsky: Are there two levels of perfection? That is, would Lynn in the situation of living apart from her husband -- not having children and not having intercourse -- -- be in a more perfect state than somebody who is having children?

Chorus of students: Just the opposite!

Linda Mitchell: Here's the whole point of being separate. What has happened throughout history is that God has always received leftovers although God should be first and foremost in our lives. In order for us to be capable of loving another person, we must see that the love doesn't come from us, but actually, literally, comes from God. And so in order to be a channel of God's love, we learn to give to our brothers in an unmarried single state when we're seeking to know God. And then, when we feel that we're ready to begin loving our mate, we can get married. We will put God before our partner. Then we're able to grow to love our partner more and to grow to love God more. On the foundation of that love, you are free to have children because then you have a very substantial relationship not only with your mate, but also with God. On that foundation, you, as a couple, can really give God's love to your children to whatever degree you have God's love in you. This doesn't mean we're perfect. We only can give as much of God's love as we have of it.

Dr. Klaaren: Aren't you merely making a theological virtue out of the chronological and biological fact that you're unmarried before you marry, and married before you have children? (laughter)

Dr. Vander Goot: I think God established the natural order. And, in fact, the natural order reflects the theology. It isn't the other way around. That's built right into Unification theology in the internal-external stuff. Of course, that's the way it is in the external order because that's God's creation. Theologically you follow the same sequence that you follow spiritually.

Lloyd Eby: That's the sense of what we mean by perfection too. A lot of people tend to see perfection as something fixed and final, but we talk about perfection as a process. When I look at Farley, for example, I can think of him as perfect in the sense that he has achieved a certain relationship between his mind and his body that I admire and try to imitate. Farley has something that I want -- not something I want to take from him, but that I want. It's not as if I think that every move he makes is going to be the absolute living end. (laughter) Perfection simply means that we have overcome enough so that we can really start to live and develop. It's like a new birth.

Lokesh Mazumdar: May I add two points? The Divine Principle says man is originally created with a potentially perfect mind and that as a result of the Fall, man has a fallen mind. So there's some kind of a wall there between the two dimensions of his mind. It is hoped that as a person gets closer to the comprehension of truth, the pieces sort of fall together. Something from outside contacts the fertile ground inside, somewhere deep inside that has never really exercised itself. So there's a kind of re-creation that takes place almost instantaneously. This doesn't always happen, but over the course of a lifetime and over the course of one's growth in the spirit world, it is hoped that this awareness increases. That accounts for the fact that sometimes a person says "I knew that," "I've heard all this before," "This sounds very familiar," "Now I can see where the pieces fit."

The other point involves my personal feelings about a confusion when you talk of love. Love is love. There's nothing evil about love. But when we refer to fallen love or satanic love, we mean a kind of love opposed to divine love. It is the lesser degree of love. Man never really experienced that greater love of God, and so he functions on one level and downward from that level. This is one reason why I would think that it's very difficult for people who have never experienced the good situation of God's love to go beyond their experience, and to say, "Well, now, let's see, there's something missing in my life -- what could that be?"

Dr. Bryant: But you do talk about the Fall in terms of sexuality. You don't talk about fallenness in other terms. Lokesh Mazumdar: I would talk about fallenness in many terms. Dr. Bryant: There are other aspects of fallen love, too. It seems that what you have done is picked up this form of fallenness -- the sexual -- and stressed it in order to understand what fallenness is in general. That may have to do with the fact that the family is your key concept in the attempt to understand the order of creation. Therefore you understand fallenness in terms of distorted sexuality.

Lloyd Eby: I want to talk for a minute about sin. I think you need to distinguish between two things. I think that we see sin as a distortion of parentage. In other words, because of what Adam and Eve did, the human race has, as it were, the wrong parentage. The human race is designed to have God as its True Parent. But because of the Fall, Satan became the parent of the human race. So to say that someone is without sin means that he has God as his True Parent.

The second thing to talk about is man's sinful nature which comes as the result of the "original" sin. That sinful nature can be expressed in many, many ways. It can be expressed as hate and lust and all the other things that people talk about as sin, as manifestations of our sinful nature. But, at its most basic level, sexuality, apart from sexuality as an expression of being joined to the parentage of God, serves to perpetuate sinful parentage. Therefore, it's necessary to restore sexuality to God as a parent. And then, after that, it's necessary to solve also all the other expressions of sin. Thus you need to distinguish between sin as parentage and sin as an expression of sinful or fallen nature.

Dr. Klaaren: What's the sexual connection between God's creation and God?

Lloyd Eby: Sexuality is the way parentage is transmitted, right? So because Adam and Eve had the relationship with the archangel, the archangel became, as it were, the parent of the human race. Therefore, Jesus could say, for example, that "You are children of your father, the Devil." And he means that both metaphorically and literally. Therefore, in order to restore God as parent of the human race, it's necessary that a new Adam come from God, a person who is not sinful and is not the product of fallen parentage. Then, through his activity with his family, a new lineage of the human race can be established with him and, through him, with God as the True Parent of the human race. There's a sense in which the fallen Adam and Eve are still the children of God because God is their origin. There's also a sense in which they're not the children of God because Satan has usurped the position of their parent. Does that make sense?

Dr. Klaaren: I follow what you're saying.

Janine Anderson: The sex act is the mechanism through which original sin is passed on. So the whole point about restoring ourselves is to be able to love in a way that's centered on God. Then, when you have children, original sin is not passed on. The sex act is the physical mechanism for the continuation of original sin.

Joe Stenson: I think it's very true that our stress on sexuality comes from the fact that sexuality is the vehicle through which the whole thing started, according to the interpretation or the meaning that we give to the story in Genesis. Our particular interpretation, which isn't all that uncommon, would say that sexuality was the vehicle through which the Fall occurred and through which the Fall is multiplied.

Lloyd Eby: Eventually, we can talk about love and the love of God and the relationship with God. But if in restoration everything is going to be reversed, the reversal must involve the vehicle. Sexuality is going to be purified. Then the sex act and sexual intercourse will be in its proper perspective as part of the relationship with God.

Dr. Richardson: The thing that bothers me here is that this is exactly the kind of thing that is said that lets Ted Patrick say, when he's deprogramming somebody: "You say Rev. Moon is your True Father. That means he had sexual intercourse with your mother." If you talk to me about sexual intercourse as the way in which parentage comes into existence, then Ted Patrick can say that. Now surely you don't want to hold that view. I think what you want to say is something like this. If Rev. Moon can be your True Father, that means that parentage does not originate through sexual intercourse, but through a spiritual or right love relation ship of which sexual intercourse may or may not be the right expression. So, for example, you would say that it's quite possible that someone might have a physical parent different from his true parent. I'm not necessarily talking of parentage in the religious sense. Take a child that is born from parents that don't want the child. They put the child up for adoption, and the adopted parents take the child and become the true parents of that child through their act of love. I think that's the view of parentage that you want to hold. In this view, rightly ordered sexual intercourse is the way in which grace is propagated by love, which controls everything, even sex.

Dr. Sawatsky: Let's check that. Is it the case now that a couple which has been perfected to some extent by their love of God has more perfect children? And if that is so, then are we picking up a notion that grace is transferred through correct parentage?

Dr. Klaaren: I have a suggestion here. Having been here and having heard you talk, I'm reminded of Calvin in his understanding of the Real Presence. Calvin argued with Luther that the Real Presence isn't in the wafer, but is in the whole liturgical act. To focus on perfection as transmitted through the act of intercourse itself is like focusing on Christ as present in the wafer. You can say that the real perfection is communicated in the wafer or in the whole liturgical act. Similarly, you can say that perfection is communicated in the act of intercourse or in the totality of family life and interaction. And then one could say -- and surely this is our experience -- that an act of sexual intercourse expresses the total ethos of the on-going living relation with the other person. And in that sense, one could argue that the child born of that relation carries with him the weight of the total relationship. But going against this suggestion, I feel that Unification theology in general is so Gestalt-oriented and process-oriented that you immediately run into trouble when you try to pick up any one belief and ask "How do you evaluate this?"

Lokesh Mazumdar: Joe used the term "principled love" for which you used the word "grace." Principled love is a pretty heavy term that was not explained completely. Therefore, it deteriorated into sexual love and sexuality.

Dr. Sawatsky: Of what import is Rev. Moon's perfection? And his passing this perfection on to his progeny? Is it separate from your perfection and your passing this on to your progeny? Can the Third Adam miss, but those of you who are his spiritual children make it?

Jonathan Wells: He constantly tells us to be prepared for that eventuality. He's always challenging us on that point.

Rev. Juris Colitis: If he's crucified, or whatever?

Jonathan Wells: Or if he were to leave the Movement or be deprogrammed, (laughter)

Dr. Richardson: Let me tell you the most startling thing I've heard in all the time I've been here. I think it was from you, Tom, or it may have been from someone else. Part of the doctrine is that just as a father and mother want their children to become more than they are, so Rev. Moon seeks and anticipates that his children will become more than he is. He challenges them to be more than he is whether he is deprogrammed or not.

Joe Stenson: Yes. His family, and us, and all.

Dr. Sawatsky: Let's catch that parable then. If Rev. Moon could miss it and you can make it, why couldn't Jesus miss it and His followers make it?

Lloyd Eby: That's an interesting question. Once one sees that people are a composite of spirit and body, or physical and spiritual, one sees then that divine lineage has to be passed on both spiritually and physically. The divine lineage was disrupted through the Fall of man both spiritually and physically. Then, in order for the divine lineage to be restored, whoever initiates the restoration has to restore the divine lineage both spiritually and physically. Now, Unification theology claims that Jesus was successful in restoring the divine lineage spiritually, but because of various difficulties, He was not successful in restoring the divine lineage physically.

Dr. Sawatsky: You mean because He didn't get married?

Lloyd Eby: Well, yes, that's part of it. Now, if it's true that Rev. Moon occupies the same position and has the same mission as the Second Adam, and if it's true that he has, in fact, succeeded in restoring that divine lineage to his own family, and also has extended his family to people who weren't born of him physically and has thus restored them to this divine lineage, then if he could be deprogrammed now, the restoration would still continue.

Dr. Sawatsky: Would that depend upon his having physical children?

Dr. Clark: What part do his physical children play in all this?

Rev. Calitis: You seem to say that restoration is a physical result of Rev. Moon's position. But then you say that the restoration is passed on to others not physically related to him. We can understand how something is passed on through the genes. But you speak of some kind of grace that is transferred by another process to all those Rev. Moon marries and to their progeny as well. Transferred by a spiritual transfer, I suppose. Do you have two mechanisms operating here? One for physical transmission and another for spiritual transmission?

Farley Jones: We conceive of that transferral taking place through the blessing of marriage. At the time of the wedding ceremony, there's what we call the Holy Wine Ceremony which is more than symbolic. It represents or communicates something from Rev. Moon's spirituality to the couple.

Dr. Sawatsky: That's helpful because one of the differences between Rev. Moon and Jesus is that Jesus attended a marriage but, as far as we know, he didn't marry. And he wasn't the one to perform the marriage. He wasn't extending the family in that sense. The other part of the question is to what extent Moon's own progeny are important in the physical restoration. Your suggestion is that his spiritual progeny are all those people who are married by him. They can continue the restoration even if his own progeny or he himself are deprogrammed.

Farley Jones: My own sense is that you are speaking too strongly when you say that I or someone else who has been married by Rev. Moon could succeed him in what he's doing, in what he represents. Yet I do believe that there is something inherited from him spiritually, through the blessing of the marriage.

Dr. Clark: Does marriage have sacramental meaning?

Lynn Kim: The marriage ceremony itself is sacramental.

Dr. Clark: Can we unpack that term a little? What do you mean by sacramental? It has meant different things in the different Christian traditions. Is there any other act in the Unification Church that's considered a sacrament, something like the Lord's Supper, or something which has that status, which would be in the same category?

Farley Jones: I think that marriage is the only act that we would understand in that way right now.

Joe Stenson: I think there is something interesting about this wedding ceremony, although I've never been to one. This is all second-hand, (laughter) To my knowledge, it combines elements of several sacraments. For instance, Farley speaks of the Holy Wine Ceremony. Part of the ceremony also involves the sprinkling of water on the couples. There is also a laying on of hands, a passing of something from Rev. Moon to the couples. Perhaps that includes even some idea of holy ordinance. And there's an element of penance also, because the laying on of hands is an act to remove original sin.

Dr. Sawatsky: I think somebody was saying before that the movement would fail if Rev. Moon failed.

Jonathan Wells: What I was saying was that at the time of Jesus, human history went through a very critical stage. After Jesus died, the new age, which was Christianity, followed the pattern of what He accomplished and couldn't go beyond what He accomplished. So if this is the new age, and if Rev. Moon is the central figure, this new age will follow the pattern of that central figure and cannot transcend his accomplishments. But that's not to say that it would fail. Christianity didn't fail. It just didn't go as far as God wanted it to go.

Dr. Bryant: One of the difficulties here is the extent to which Jesus becomes a relevant and central figure for Unification, or the extent to which Jesus is superseded by Rev. Moon's conversations with Jesus and God.

Mike Jenkins: An understanding of Jesus is very central to my understanding of what I'm involved with today. Study of Jesus' life and teaching helps me to understand why Jesus came, the reason for His coming, and why He said He would return. Christology, the mission of the Second Advent, the purpose of the coming of the Messiah, all these things are essential to understanding the situation today.

Klaus Lindner: If we look at the Biblical accounts of Jesus, it's important to keep in mind that Jesus was not recognized. Many of the things that Jesus did are not normative for the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven. For example, the concern for the poor that is portrayed in the gospels may be overstressed because the people who followed Jesus happened to be mostly poor people.

Lloyd Eby: In connection with the question about the relationship between Jesus and Rev. Moon, I think it's worth considering the parallel question: the relationship between Moses and Jesus. At the time of Jesus' life, some of the Jewish people came to Him and said they were followers of Moses. Jesus answered that if they were really followers of Moses, they would be followers of Him.

Dr. Sawatsky: Would you say that Moon is now the one who really determines who the true follower of God is? By analogy?

Lloyd Eby: Yes.

Dr. Ward Wilson: Can we just pick that one up a little bit? I have tried to determine if this is a Christian group or not, and part of the reason I've been wondering about that is that it seems to me that Christianity is of high import in the Unification movement, but possibly not necessarily. It would seem that you can come to know the Third Adam without necessarily knowing the Second Adam. You need to know the position of the Second Adam, but you need not know the person of the Second Adam. That is, you can come to the Third Adam as a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Shintoist if you understand that Rev. Moon stands in the tradition of the Messiah. Is that right?

Joe Stein: I came to the Unification Church from a Jewish background. Part of the experience that I had in meeting the Unification Church seven and a half years ago came through an understanding of the mission of Jesus. This wasn't an understanding of the mission of Jesus as an intellectual concept or that Rev. Moon stood in the line of the prophets. No, the basis of Unification theology is an experiential relationship with God, with the heart of God. In order to understand the heart of God, we have to understand the heart of Jesus and that is not merely an intellectual understanding. We have to know and feel in ourselves what it is that Jesus felt through His life experience. Rev. Moon's revelation came on the foundation of Jesus' life and Jesus' experience, so Rev. Moon would be the last person to say that you can come without Jesus. So you can't come through the process of the Unification Church to a standard of the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven on earth without the foundation of Jesus Christ. In becoming deeply connected with Rev. Moon at this time -- a time in which God's Kingdom is imminent -- we feel that we're also understanding the heart of Jesus Christ. It's not selling Jesus Christ short to become involved in the Unification Church and have a high esteem for Rev. Moon. The difficulty comes when Christians feel that we have supplanted Jesus with Rev. Moon. This causes a problem because people aren't aware of the depth of the relationship between Rev. Moon and Jesus Christ. We believe that that relationship with Jesus enables Rev. Moon to have his revelation and mission. If his mission is a mission to fulfill and, in a sense, to broaden what Jesus came to accomplish, then Rev. Moon would have to be completely one in heart, spirit and mind with God and with Jesus Christ himself. So, you could have been a Buddhist, or you could have been an atheist, or Hindu, or Confucianist, or Jew before you came into the Unification movement; but you have to come through Jesus' experience. You have to come through Christianity in that sense. You don't necessarily have to come through institutional Christianity, but you have to come through Christ.

Diana Muxworthy: From my own personal experience I would agree with Joe that Christianity and Jesus are central to our understanding. But the chronology of how they affect us may vary among the members.

Editor's note:

* Subsequently the editors have heard variant accounts of the origins of the Divine Principle. We have never heard this particular story repeated; nor have we been able to confirm a version of the Divine Principle in Rev. Moon's own hand.