10 Theory of History
Introduction
What has the future in store for mankind? Is there hope for better times? Should we simply give up and wait for the final destruction of the world? Such are the questions of people today, especially the young.
Although a great number of scholars have expounded their views on the future, none of these views has proved very satisfactory. The only view that has been widely accepted among young people is that of historical materialism, proposed by Marxists. There are two main reasons why communism has spread to all corners of the earth and is attracting so many intellectuals: first, communism offers a view of history; and second, it presents a new ideal for mankind’s future.
If we want to go beyond historical materialism, we must have a new and better view of history. The Unification view of history, I believe, has these characteristics. A lot of people have studied the chapter on the “Providence of Restoration” in the Unification Principle, but perhaps many have not fully understood its importance. Accordingly, I have tried to organize this chapter into a system of thought; through this systematization I hope the full significance of the Unification view of history can be perceived.
In my student days, I found myself leaning very much toward communism; later, however, I gave it up, for I felt that its answers were not satisfactory and could not really solve life’s problems. After that, I became restless for a while, because I had no new view of history to take its place. Communists are convinced that global communization is the key to solving all the problems mankind faces in the world today. When I abandoned communism, I felt I had to find a new vision for the future, but I didn't even know whether that was possible or not. Since joining the Unification Church, however, my feeling of unrest has disappeared; I have steadfast confidence in this new view of history.
We will not see a communist world in the future, but instead, the ideal world of God’s creation. It will be a world governed in accordance with cosmic principles; society will be as one great family, filled with God’s love. The significance of our view of history is its ability to give young people who have lost hope a new ideal for the future.
Because Christianity has not presented a convincing view of history, communism has been able to spread all over the world in the last one hundred and twenty years. Christians view history—in a nutshell—as the history of the providence of God, at the end of which Christ will come again, and God will judge the world in order to establish His Kingdom. One can accept such a view as a canon of faith, but it is difficult to accept it as a scientific proposition. God, the judge, sits up in Heaven, rewarding the good and punishing the wicked as He sees fit; He can intervene whenever and wherever He chooses. There seem to be no laws.
The Christian view of history does not offer any theories or laws with regard to God’s providence in the world; consequently, it is not easily accepted as a subject of study among other subjects in school curricula. Since history belongs to the field of social sciences, a historical view can be taught as a social science only if it contains theories and laws related to historical development.
We live in an age when science is considered omnipotent. In order to survive today, theories must be empirical and theoretical, as well as presenting concrete formulae. Just as natural science is based upon laws, social sciences—such as economics, politics and jurisprudence—must also be backed up by laws.
Light, for instance, obeys the law of refraction; gases obey Boyle’s law and Charles’s law; the heavenly bodies follow Newton’s law of universal gravitation. All the natural sciences are based on laws; hence, they have authority. Theoretically, where there are no laws there is no authority.
It is reasonable to expect that historical events have also developed according to certain laws-and young people want to learn them. They are fascinated by the possibility of the existence of historical laws, and thus are attracted to historical materialism, which claims to know these laws.
Christianity has been unable to defend itself against the onslaught of the communist ideology. Needless to say, it has also been unable to attack the communist “heresy.” The communists maintain that there are materialistic and dialectical laws in history, and they scorn Christians for failing to produce any laws to back up their beliefs. Historical materialism states that just as spirit is produced from matter, so economics provides the material base in history from which “spirit” arises. Spirit refers to ideology, such as political, philosophical, religious, and moral ideas; these constitute the super-structure of society; they are based upon and determined by economy, which is the infrastructure of society.
Historical materalism claims that history has developed because economy has developed (or more precisely, the relations of production have developed in accordance with the development of the productive forces; then, in accordance with the development of the relations of production, the superstructure develops). From the primitive communal society came the slave society, the feudal society, and then the capitalist society. The material conditions of life (productive forces and relations of production) are the determining factor for the ideological development. This is a law of history. The historical view that the economic development precedes that of ideology is nothing but the application of this materialistic view to history.
According to dialectical materialism, development is the result of struggle. Everything contains opposite , which struggle against each other, thus bringing about development. In the same way, history has developed through struggles between two opposing classes. At first glance, this way of thinking seems to be very reasonable, so much so that Christians themselves are becoming convinced of it in great numbers. The Christian ranks have been sadly depleted of intellectuals; Russia and Eastern European nations, once Christian, are now ruled by communism. The Christian forces in those countries have been reduced to a pitiful state. It is the intention of the Unification Church and Unification Thought not only to defend Christianity against the communist ideology, but also to counteract and neutralize that ideology by showing its errors, and then present a better counterproposal. Communism is doomed to lose its ground.
Because God is the God of principle and laws, He not only created the universe according to laws, but also has been carrying out His providence according to laws. Indeed there were laws in history, and they are described in the “Principle of Restoration.”
The laws of historical materialism are not real laws, because they are subjective. Laws must be objective. The sun, for instance, rises in the east and sets in the west, whether we like it or not; this is “objective.” Historical laws should also be objective, transcendent, and independent of the human will. The laws of historical materialism, however, cannot be found in history; in other words, actual examples of the laws of historical materialism cannot be identified in any age of history. They are pseudo-laws, fabricated subjectively only to support class struggle and violent revolution. They cannot be called objective laws.
These various assertions will be substantiated when I explain the Unification view of history; first, however, I would like to introduce a representative selection of views of history of past historians.
I. Traditional Views of History
A. The Cyclic View
The cyclic view of history originates from Greece. It says that history does not have any specific direction or goal, but repeats itself in circular motion. Its recurring cycles explain the repetitive rise and fall of civilizations. Men and nations prosper if they are lucky, but decline if they are unlucky. Prosperity and decline are guided by the invisible hand of fate. (Accordingly, this view may be called the fatalistic view of history; representative historians holding this view are Herodotus and Thucydides.) As this view does not clarify where man came from or what his purpose is, those who uphold it can hardly have any real hope for a secure and prosperous future.
B. The Providential View
St. Augustine, in his book The City of God, sets forth this view of history around the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, in the fifth century A.D. He was the first influential thinker to develop a systematic philosophical explanation of God’s providence. He said there is a beginning and an end to human history; in other words, history has direction. It develops in a straight line, from the beginning till it reaches its goal. Compared with the cyclic one, this view of history is quite progressive; nevertheless, it is still rather vague.
At the end of the world—according to this view—the Messiah will come; Satan will be bound; Christ will reign for one thousand years. After this, the eternal Kingdom will be established. What the eternal Kingdom is and how it will be formed, however, are not clear from Augustine’s writings, perhaps because the Bible itself does not clarify these points. Though St. Augustine’s views on the providence of God may have been rather vague, nevertheless they had tremendous influence in Christian theology and led Christianity through the Middle Ages.
C. The Progressive View (Spiritual View)
The modern era began with a reaction against the rigidly God-centered Middle Ages, in which everything was interpreted with God as the standard. Since the people of the Middle Ages had only a vague understanding of God, numerous problems arose. The clergy, headed by the Pope, oppressed the people and ignored human individuality.
In reaction to such circumstances, humanism—a man-centered ideology—appeared, as part of the movement of the Renaissance. The Reformation—a religiously-oriented movement—occurred at about the same time. Based on humanism, the medieval view of history was challenged and then replaced by a new view, according to which technological and social developments continue as long as the human spirit and reason continue to develop. This is the progressive, or spiritual, view of history.
In recent times, science has been making rapid progress. Man has come to believe that he can do anything by himself, through the simple use of reason. The providential help of God, considered essential in the Middle Ages, has largely been dismissed as unnecessary. The various views of history presented in this period differ among themselves, of course, but they generally agree on this one point that the development of history is caused and explained by the development of the human spirit and reason. Representatives of this view are Vico, Voltaire, Condorcet, Kant, Herder, Lessing, and Hegel.
Specifically with regard to Hegel, there are scholars who set him apart from the others. He had a spiritual view of history, and the spirit to which he referred was the absolute spirit, or Logos—that is, God.1 The absolute spirit manifests itself in the visible form of nature, which then develops to form man. Man, therefore, is a manifestation of the absolute spirit. Consequently, what makes history develop is not man, but the absolute spirit (world spirit) working through man.
D. The Revolutionary View
The revolutionary view of history came after the progressive view. This is the historical materialism of Marx. According to this theory, history develops on the basis of the material conditions—that is, productive forces and relations of production. Productive forces are tools, skills, knowledge, experience, and techniques by which man obtains the necessities of life. Relations of production are the social relationships of human beings viewed in the light of the means of production.
At certain points in economic development, the relations of production become a hindrance to the progress of productive forces. Productive forces, however, cannot be stopped; relations of production must be broken down; in other words, the old social system must be destroyed and a new one built. The outcome of the struggle between productive forces and relations of production is revolution.
The ruling class, it is held, desperately tries to maintain the established relations of production, whereas the ruled class wishes to see the productive forces continue their development. Their struggle, therefore, actually means the struggle between the rulers and the ruled. This is how historical materialism explains social change and development. Societies develop, not by the work of the human spirit or reason-as the progressive view had said—but by economic, or material forces.
Historical materialism may sound true, but a careful scrutiny of its foundations and assumptions will show it actually is false. This brings to mind the circumstances of the Human Fall at the Garden of Eden. Satan, also, approached Eve with words that seemed to be true but actually were false. He tempted her by saying, “When you eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil your eyes will be opened.” The consequences of the Fall show that those words were totally false. In a similar way, communists present and interpret social phenomena in any way that will suit their needs, cloaking their theories with a scientific garb and luring a great number of persons into their ranks.
Communists say that productive forces and relations of production are material things, but we insist that they are more than just material. Through the “Theory of the Original Image” and “Ontology,” I have shown that every existence and phenomenon has the dual characteristics of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. Productive Forces and Relations of Production, therefore, have these dual characteristics also. This is easily shown. Technology has both material and spiritual aspects: laborers have to learn technical skills, which can never be learned without knowledge—and knowledge is a spiritual reality. At the same time, the necessary physical strength is a material power; so, productive forces have both spiritual and material aspects. The same can be said with regard to relations of production; they are human relations, which should be centered on ethical and spiritual values.
Man develops economy in order to satisfy his desire to live a more comfortable life. Economy, therefore, exists solely because of man’s desires. Since desire is essentially spiritual, even economy has both physical and spiritual aspects. (See “Axiology,” section 2) The reason is that all things are created as individual truth bodies-that is, in the image of God. Since God has the dual characteristics of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, all things must likewise have these dual characteristics. The assertion, therefore, that economy is only material is a one-sided and tendentious fallacy, as is the ensuing view of the development of history.
The spiritual aspect, or Sung Sang, is the subject; the material aspect, or Hyung Sang, is the object. Accordingly, we can say that the causal power for the development of history originates from a spiritual element, that is human desire, and not from a material element. Even though spirit may be the subject and the most important element, matter, nevertheless, must be included as well, for without it there can be no productive forces. Both elements need to enter into a give-and-take relationship in order for history to develop. The Unification view is neither a spiritual view nor a materialistic view of history. This does not mean, however, that it is a composite view. Our view is founded on the Original Image, which is the United Body of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, as is man. Consequently, it is the Unification view that Sung Sang and Hyung Sang-or spirit and matter-have worked jointly to bring about the development of history.
Out of all the historical views, that of historical materialism is being most strongly disseminated in the world today, in spite of its inconsistencies. Its propagators declare with confidence that the communist society will surely come in the future,’so it has gained a large following, especially among the young.
E. The Philosophy-of-Life View
The progressive view had become too inclined toward rationalism, disregarding the emotional and real aspects of human life. On the other hand, the revolutionary view had dealt with man as a being subordinate to material forces and laws, disregarding man’s subjectivity and his ability to rule over material things and laws. After that, a new view appeared, taking positions different from those of the above two views. That was the view based on the Philosophy of Life, which dealt with history as the growth process of life, as the unity of emotion, intellect, and will, and as an expression of the direct experience of life. Dilthey, Bergson, and Simmel are representatives of the philosophy-of-life view of history. This view, also, contains a blind spot. The suffering, pain, and unhappiness in human history are occurrences that inevitably take place during the growth process of life, according to this view. Accordingly, there is no real hope to liberate mankind from pain and anxiety.
F. The Cultural View
Until the present, the term ‘history’ had usually been used to refer to the record of a people’s or of a country’s past. Most historians have concentrated on political and national histories; world history is considered to be a mere synthesis of these histories. Arnold Toynbee, on the other hand, saw history from the standpoint of culture. If we are to study human history, we cannot study each nation as a separate entity. American history, for instance, cannot be studied separately from British history, for those who pioneered the United States were British. British history, on the other hand, must be viewed in the larger context of European history, especially Italian history. This, in turn, must be viewed in the context of Greek history, and so on.
The history of any one country, Toynbee maintains, is connected with that of other countries. For this reason, a study of history should have a world-wide perspective; its themes should be about civilizations or cultures, rather than national events. When we study the history of the Far East, for example, we should regard Japan, Korea, and China as originating from the same culture, and study them from this perspective. This approach is called the civilization view of history, or cultural view of history.
Here I wish briefly to outline Toynbee’s view of history. Since modern times, few historians (theologians aside) have dared to believe in St. Augustine’s providential view of history. Toynbee, however, introduced the idea of God’s providence in his theories, making, therefore, a very significant contribution.
Toynbee questioned the validity of traditional theories concerning the birth of civilizations. One of them says that civilizations developed along the valleys of large rivers, such as the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, and Yellow rivers. According to most historians, this happened because of the physical advantages of those regions, especially their fertility due to silt accumulation from seasonal flooding. People were naturally attracted to settle there and to begin farming. In order to irrigate their crops they developed technology and constructed dams. They also had to learn how to prevent or control floods, which could wash away everything they worked for. This is one way to explain the birth of civilizations. Other historians, however, have a different theory. In their view, certain races just naturally had the talents and ability required to develop a civilization, whereas other races did not.
Toynbee found weaknesses in these traditional theories. The rivers around which civilizations developed are not the only ones in the world that have special environmental conditions. Other rivers, such as the Mississippi and the Yangtze rivers have equally good environmental conditions; yet, no great civilizations rose up around them.
Toynbee formulated his new theory about the birth of civilizations based upon an idea he found in Goethe’s Faust. He took a hint from the “Prologue in Heaven.” Three archangels and Mephistopheles come before God, and the three archangels praise the perfectness and greatness of God’s creation. Afterwards, Mephistopheles criticizes God’s creation of humankind. Then, God mentions a righteous man named Faust. So Mephistopheles asks God for permission to corrupt Faust and lead him into betraying God. Permission is granted. Mephistopheles goes out and joyfully begins his destructive work. He goes into the body of Faust and corrupts him, making him drink heavily and spend his time uselessly. Mephistopheles is happy with what he has done, because he thinks that he has managed to destroy the work of God, who is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.
Eventually, however, Faust repents, leaves his evil ways, and returns to God. The Heavenly Kingdom, which was supposedly lost, is recovered. Seeing this, Mephistopheles feels vexed. He realizes that God has actually been using him. God’s creation was so perfect that He had nothing to do after completing it. He had been bored and wanted some stimulation; when Mephistopheles asked permission to destroy the world, God willingly gave it to him. After he had destroyed the world, God came along and recovered it. He was happy to do it, because it was something more to be achieved.
In this story, Toynbee says that Mephistopheles, or Satan, had challenged God, and He had responded to the challenge. This is the origin of Toynbee’s concept of challenge and response. He said that civilizations emerge from man’s response to a challenge, such as the flooding of a river. In order to respond to the challenge of the flooding of a river, for instance, God works through man to develop technology and build dams and irrigation systems.
A civilization, therefore, starts as a response to a challenge. If it fails to meet the challenge, it perishes; if it succeeds, however, it begins to grow. This is how God has been working to make civilizations develop. Through the process of challenge and response, history is moving toward the formation of God’s Kingdom, but Toynbee is unsure that it can be established on earth.
Tonybee views civilizations as having a life span similar to that of humans. He divided it into five stages: birth, growth, breakdown, disintegration, and death. Whenever a civilization emerges as a response to a challenge, a creative minority appears to lead the masses and to set an example for them to follow. After the civilization becomes stable and prosperous, problems may appear, as the creative minority tends to become corrupt. (In this stage it is known as the dominant minority.) Because of their power and position, they no longer think of the masses, but turn into a greedy and selfish ruling minority. Such cases can be found in nations all over the world.
When this happens, those who are discontented begin to organize themselves. There is a group of discontented people within the state (the internal proletariat) and a group of discontented people outside the state (the external proletariat). The word ‘proletariat’ here has a meaning that differs from the one given to it by Marx. In Marxism, proletariat refers to unpropertied people, or the labor class; in Toynbee’s theory, it refers to those who are discontented with the age in which they are living and feel alienated from it.
As discontentment grows, the dominant minority strengthens its military control within the state in order to prevent an internal uprising, while attacking neighboring states with the intention of expanding its own territory into a universal state. Though large in territory, the state is already beginning to erode and get out of control from within.
At the disintegration stage, the internal proletariat turns to spiritual values, forming a religious group that ultimately seeks love and compassion. This higher religion, which Toynbee calls the universal church, keeps the civilization alive by preserving a germ of life through the difficult period between the dissolution of one civilization and the genesis of another. At the same time, militant groups form to oppose the state from outside. Here three forces come into conflict: the ruling minority, the religious groups, and the militant groups. As a result, this universal state which by now possesses a very large territory, becomes unable to function, and thus perishes. The Roman Empire is an example of this situation. Even though its territory covered all the area around the Mediterranean Sea and beyond, it became ungovernable. Christianity rose as a protest to its internal corruption; rebellions took place in the provinces; and the empire fell with the invasion of the Germanic tribes.
Toynbee writes in A Study of History that today’s western civilization is in the stage of disintegration. He maintains, however, that if the leaders take responsibility to make great effort, western civilization can be saved, and a universal state—literally worldwide—can be established.
Today’s Christians, it is held, should not deny communism completely; rather, they should learn from its good points. Since the monopolistic capitalist system has numerous deficiencies, we should combine the economic system of socialism with the liberal and humanistic views of capitalism in order to establish a new universal government. If leaders fulfill their responsibility by carrying out such a plan, our civilization can be revived, but he is not completely certain of this. He feels that the political and spiritual unification of the world may not necessarily be achieved by a western agency. He maintains, however, that a truly universal state, based upon a higher religion must come about soon, if mankind is to survive at all. This, Toynbee believes, is the only alternative to self-destruction.
This is a brief outline of Toynbee’s view of history; through it we can see he had a certain understanding of the providence of God. The problem with his view is that it is rather pessimistic and fails to give young people any concrete hope for the future. This is one of the reasons why his ideas are no longer widely supported in the world today. Nevertheless, we can say Toynbee’s view has fulfilled a mission similar to that of John the Baptist, in the sense that it has prepared the way for a new view of history based on the providence of God—the Unification Theory of History.
Introducing an awareness of God’s providence into his theory of history was a great step forward; from the point of view of God’s providence, this cannot but be regarded as Toynbee’s major achievement. Just as other historians have accepted Toynbee’s idea of God’s providence in history, so will they soon accept the Unification view of history, including it in their lectures in schools, as part of social science.
G. Comparative Analysis of the Providential View and the Revolutionary View
Communism has spread all over the world, overwhelming Western Christian countries. The reason—without exaggeration—is that the revolutionary view of history has been more persuasive than the providential view of history. The revolutionary view is more persuasive because it is the completion-stage thought on the Satanic side. Accordingly, a new view of history on the Heavenly side should be established in order to overcome the revolutionary view. Before presenting such a view-that is, the Unification view of History—I think it would be useful to know why the providential view has been defeated by the revolutionary view, in spite of being on the Heavenly side.2
1. The Beginning of History
The providential view says that human history began with the Fall of man; it started, therefore, as sinful history. The Fall was caused by the first human ancestors’ eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But most people, even Christians, think this explanation is no more than a myth. This view, therefore, is not persuasive today.
On the other hand, the revolutionary view maintains that human history started from the primitive communal society. Furthermore, it says the development of the productive forces divided society into classes: the ruling class and the ruled class. This view, which is supported by Lewis H. Morgan’s Theory of Ancient Society, seems more persuasive—especially to intellectuals—than the providential view.
2. The Motive Power of Development
In the Providential View, God’s Providence is considered the motive power of development in history. It has not made clear, however, what kinds of laws have worked in history. God rewards the good and punishes the evil, according to His providence. This explanation is only a matter of belief; it is difficult for intellectuals to accept it today.
The revolutionary view, on the other hand, says the motive power consists of the productive forces. According to the development of the productive forces, human society has changed from the classless, primitive communal society to the class society—first to slave society; next, to feudal society; then to capitalist society; and finally to the classless communist society, through socialism. In this view, the development of history is material and proceeds in accordance with material laws. The revolutionary view seems scientific, while the providential view does not.
3. Opponents and Struggle
According to the providential view, there has been struggle between those who belong to the City of God and those who belong to the City of the World. Behind those people, good angels, led by Michael, and evil angels, led by Satan (the Dragon) have been struggling, and the Dragon will be cast out on earth in the Last Days. (Revelation 12:7-9)
On the other hand, the revolutionary view says history has developed through the struggle between the ruling class—which owns the productive instruments—and the ruled class, which has only the labor force. The providential view is considered today as an imaginative story, and a matter of belief; by contrast, the revolutionary view seems quite congruent with modern man’s perception of the world.
4. Events at the End of History
The providential view holds that, at his second coming, Christ will come down from the clouds and will judge good and evil, giving eternal glory to those who belong to the City of God and eternal damnation to those who belong to the City of the World. This is the Last Judgment. But this, also, is considered only a matter of belief; besides, there are numerous interpretations of what will take place in the Last Judgment, depending on various theologians; this view, therefore, is not persuasive. On the other hand, the revolutionary view claims that at the end of history revolution will occur to exterminate class society. The last class society is capitalist society. Violent revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are justified in this view. Here, too, the revolutionary view seems more convincing than the providential view.
5. The Ending of History
In the providential view, the ending of history is the ending of the sinful world, but it is not clear how the end will come or what will actually happen. On the other hand, in the revolutionary view, the ending of history is the ending of class society—that is, the ending of capitalist society. It says that the gap between the rich and the poor, or the ruling and the ruled, has now come to the peak, and this is the symptom of the final day of capitalism. Here, again, the revolutionary view is more concrete and more convincing than the providential view.
6. The New World after the End of History
According to the providential view, the millennium will come after the end of sinful history, and Christ will reign on earth for a thousand years; those who participate in the first resurrection shall reign with Christ. (Revelation 20:1-7) But it is not clear what resurrection means or what the millennium is like. By contrast, in the revolutionary view, the ideal of the communist society, which will come after the end of class society, is concrete and realistic, even if it is something difficult to put into practice, as history has shown. In conclusion, the revolutionary view appears more reasonable, more logical, and more convincing than the providential view; consequently, a large number of intellectuals have been attracted to it. Under such circumstances, the free world, which is based on Christianity, will be unable to stop the expansion of communism. Here lies the necessity for the appearance, on the Heavenly side, of a new view of history that can overcome the revolutionary view, supplementing and revitalizing the providential view.
According to the Unification Principle, the evil side (Satan) imitates the ideal of the Heavenly side in advance. The revolutionary view of history is, therefore, the evil view established by Satan in anticipation of the appearance of the new Heavenly view. In other words, when the Heavenly view appears, it will set forth a new view of history that can overcome the revolutionary view. Undoubtedly, the Unification view of history contains such requisites.
II. The Unification View of History
A. Fundamental Points
Basically, the Unification View cannot be classified under the cyclic, providential (i.e., Augustinian), progressive, philosophy-of-life, materialistic, or cultural view. What kind of view is it, then? It is a view based on the premise that human history contains the three aspects of “history of sin,” “history of re-creation,” and “history of restoration.”
First, human history is the history of sin. It is not normal history, or principled history, because it derives from the Fall of man. We cannot apply the laws of development observed in nature to human history directly, because in nature there is no sin, whereas in human history there is. Conversely, the laws that our research may discover as applicable to human history do not necessarily coincide with the laws of nature; they may be similar, but not identical. Since human history has been marred by sin, there must be different laws to explain its transition from one stage to another.
Second, human history is the history of re-creation. Because of the human Fall, creation became imperfect, lost its connection with God, and came under the dominion of Satan. Man and society, therefore, need to be made perfect; in other words, they need to be re-created.
Third, human history is the history of restoration. It is not just “providential history,” as St. Augustine said; it is the history of the “providence of restoration,” through which man and the world are to be restored. Unification Thought, therefore, clarifies the nature of God’s providence.
B. The Origin, Direction and Goal of History
There is an origin and a direction in history. The Christian providential view of history believes that history has an origin; other thinkers do so as well. Jaspers, for instance, said that the origin of historical development was man’s creation by God, not his Fall. If this were the case, then human history would have proceeded in a natural way. If the history we have seen is natural, and has been carried out by original man, what an imperfect creation on God’s part! The Unification Thought view, however, is different; it places the origin of historical development at the Fall of man, not at his creation.
Human history, according to Jaspers, began long before cultural history, back in the prehistoric past, when man’s fires lit up the caves he lived in. (Jaspers calls this the Promethean Age.) According to the Unification point of view, however, history began from the Fall of the first human ancestors. Here a question might be asked with regard to the number of the first human ancestors: were they one couple or many couples? Many people today believe in the pluralistic view, according to which there were several original couples (Cro-Magnon man, Java man, Peking Man, etc.); but we hold the monistic view and maintain that the original human ancestors were just one couple—Adam and Eve. (See Divine Principle, especially Part I, Chapters 1 and 2.)
The goal of history, therefore, is the realization of God’s ideal world of creation. This is the ideal that every person cherishes, because it was once promised to us by God and then lost as a consequence of the human Fall. For this reason, every person has continuously sought the ideal world (though unconsciously at times), and God has done likewise.
The origin and goal of history, therefore, are definite. Moreover, we do not feel that history will end upon reaching its goal. On the contrary, since the purpose of history is to restore mankind and the original world, when this is done mankind will lead a sinless life here on earth, by living according to God’s ideal of creation. Here the Unification view is quite clear, as opposed to Augustine’s view, for example, which says that at the end-time the earth will be incinerated and God will make a new heaven and a new earth.
Whether or not there is an origin and a goal in history has been a problem hard enough to solve; aside from this, the issue of how to achieve that goal has been a major concern. These questions generate a great deal of controversy among historians, who take definite positions against one another, according to their various interpretations.
For Marx, the origin of history is the primitive communal society. Though he does not speak about the end of the world as such, he does, nevertheless, say that the goal of history is the realization of the communist society. After this goal has been reached, Marx does not speak clearly about the fate of the communist society.
According to Marxism, not only the origin of history and its goal, but also the process through which this goal is to be realized, have been previously determined. From the primitive communal society, to the slave society, to the feudal society, to the capitalist society, to the socialist society, and finally to the communist society—the developmental stages of history are already determined. This view is known as determinism.
On the other hand, the view that the origin, goal, and process of history are not determined is known as indeterminism. Toynbee’s view is an acknowledged example of indeterminism. Though he says that every civilization follows the pattern of birth, growth, breakdown, disintegration, and death, yet if man fulfills his responsibility and responds to the challenge, a supposedly doomed nation can be revived.
Toynbee maintains that God’s goal is to establish His Kingdom, but no one knows how soon that will be realized, for it depends on how man responds to the challenges he must face. This can also be called theory of free will, as it asserts that history develops according to man’s free will.
The Unification view of history seems to be both deterministic and indeterministic. It is deterministic in asserting that history has an origin and a goal (to be reached in definite stages); on the other hand, it is indeterministic in asserting that the attainment of the goal partially depends on the ability of the various providential figures to fulfill their portion of responsibility. In other words, whether the course of history moves directly toward the goal, or makes a detour, or is prolonged is not determined. Noah’s family for instance, failed to complete its portion of responsibility in the Old Testament period. Had they been successful, the Messiah would have been able to come shortly thereafter. Since failure occurred in numerous other instances in the providential history, the attainment of the goal of history has been delayed for six thousand years (according to the symbolic numbers of the Bible).
The goal of history, therefore, is determined; the process to reach it, however, is not. This is a unique view, which must be expressed by a new term. I would like to offer the term theory of responsibility, or responsibilism.
Indeed, whenever a new thought appears, new terms are coined to express its nuances and are eventually integrated into common usage. Now, for instance, we use the expression “law of give-and-take action” and “correlative elements", rather than “dialectic” and “opposing elements.” Time will show that the Marxian terms will pass away, and the Unification ones will replace them.
C. The Laws of History
Communists have continually denounced the Christian view of history, saying that it has no laws. They are confident that they have defeated it, and that the Christian view of history can never again be reconstructed. Contrary to their expectation s, the Unification view of history has appeared. They have been surprised and horrified to learn that a new view of history has appeared and that it contains history’s true laws. There are two general categories of laws in history: the laws of creation and the laws of restoration.
1. The Laws of Creation
The first laws we can observe in history are the laws of creation. The reason why the laws of creation have been applied in history is that history has been the history of re-creation. God applied certain laws when He created the universe, and He applies the same laws to the history of re-creation.
If I were to single out the most important of these laws, they would be the following six: the law of correlativity, the law of give-and-take action, the law of the dominion of the center, the law of completion through three stages, the law of the period of the number six, and the law of responsibility.
(a) The Law of Correlativity
The correlativity of subjective and objective elements is the first pre-requisite for progress in history, whether it be religious, cultural, political, economic, or scientific progress. The correlative elements in history refer (1) to Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, such as spiritual culture and material culture, and man and environment; and (2) to principal individual (individuals) and subordinate individual (individuals)—such as king and subjects, government and people, and managers and laborers. I would like to explain this law, giving an example of correlativity of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in history.
One time I spoke with a Korean professor who specialized in political history. He realized, though not clearly, that there seem to be laws that vertically penetrate human history. He called this a vertical axis, but he said he was unable to understand the essence of it. I explained to him that from the standpoint of the Unification Principle this is the law of correlativity. I went on to explain that just as God is the United Body of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, so is man. History also has both Sung Sang and Hyung Sang aspects, just as man does.
As an application of this law, we can see that central history is divided into two currents. With the providential purpose of restoring man’s spirit, Hebraism, the Sung Sang current, entered the Roman Empire and absorbed part of it to become the Christian civilization, which went on to lead the West during the period of the Middle Ages. It continued through the modern age and finally became the western democratic civilization of today.
Hellenism, the Hyung Sang current, providentially had its primary purpose in restoring the environment of man. The Hellenistic civilization also entered the Roman Empire and formed the Roman civilization. After the western Roman civilization perished, it was preserved in the Byzantine culture centered on Constantinople and the Saracen civilization of the Middle East. It appeared again in Italy at the end of the Middle Ages and gave impetus to the Renaissance. It continued as the thought of the Enlightenment via British empiricism (Locke and others) and French materialism. In the form of the Enlightenment it caused the French Revolution; from there it appeared as socialism, and finally as communism.
The confrontation between democracy and communism can be seen as the confrontation between Hebraism and Hellenism. This is the vertical axis of history, the central axis; all else is peripheral history.
We can make such an assertion because we know the laws of God’s creation. Everything in the universe exists with the correlativities of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positivity and negativity, principal element and subordinate element, reflecting the correlativity of God’s Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and Positivity and Negativity. Since history has been the record of fallen man’s deeds, it resembles fallen man. In fallen man, the Sung Sang (spirit) and the Hyung Sang (body) are separated, though not completely. So, the spiritual and physical senses of fallen man are not in harmony; men on earth, therefore, do not have a clear understanding of the spiritual world. The senses are separated, but the correlativity itself is not gone. History, therefore, follows a pattern similar to that of fallen man. Consequently, Hebraism and Hellenism, which originally should have developed together in history, have actually been developing separately, influencing each other occasionally.
(b)The Law of Give-and-Take Action
For any development to occur, give-and-take action must take place between subject and object. The law of give-and-take action, therefore, cannot be separated from the law of correlativity. They are like the two sides of a coin. For example, government and people must cooperate in harmonious give-and-take action in order for a harmonious society to be formed and to develop.
Give-and-take action is a prerequisite for invention. Watt, for instance, invented the steam engine, but he did not do it all by himself. He cooperated with a lot of people, who helped make his invention possible. When someone works to develop technology or to put it to practical use, harmonious give-and-take action must take place between laborers, technicians, machines, and so forth.
The cause of the steady development of history is found in the law of give-and-take action. The harmonious give-and-take action between the correlative (not opposing) subject and object elements gives rise to development.
Marxists insist that both nature and society develop through struggle between opposing elements. Admittedly, there have been numerous struggles during the course of human history, but Marxists recognize only one kind of struggle—that between classes. They claim that history has developed because of class struggle. According to Unification Thought, however, the basis of the numerous conflicts in history has not been struggles between classes, but struggles between good and evil. I stated before that development comes about only through give-and-take action and has nothing to do with struggle. Then, what role does struggle play in history? Has it facilitated the development of history or has it hindered it? I will discuss this point in more detail later in this chapter, under the topic of “the basic laws of historical change.”
Whether man is fallen or not, development is brought about only through give-and-take action. Although the society in which we live is non-principled, there remain some aspects of it that are principled in external appearance. It is a non-principled society with a principled appearance. It is a Satanic society that looks like a principled one. The direction in which it is going, however, is quite different from that of the principled society; yet even in the fallen society some aspects of principled give-and-take action can be found.
In conclusion, it is our assertion that the development of history has been realized in accordance with the principle of harmonious give-and-take action.
(c) The Law of the Dominion of the Center
Whenever give-and-take action between subject and object takes place, the subject always takes the position of center. This is considered as one of the laws of creation. I stated in the section, “The Existing Mode of the Existing Being,” that all created beings are involved in circular motion. This, however, can only take place if there is a center—that is, a subject—as well as an object that revolves around it.
In the quadruple base, the Heart (or purpose) and the United Body do not directly take part in circular motion. It is the subject and the object that do so. Purpose—the center of the quadruple base—is actually within the subject. Accordingly, the object revolves centering on the subject; in other words, it is controlled by the subject. The earth, for instance, revolves around the sun; we say, therefore, that the earth is controlled by the sun. The same law applies in the providential history. God first prepares a suitable social environment, and then selects a central person to control it and to move His providence to a higher stage. This is the law of the dominion of the center.
Japan, for example, was in a state of great confusion at the close of the Tokugawa era; some new figures appeared and brought about the Meiji Reformation. Korea, also, was in a state of confusion just before the May 16th Revolution; new leaders appeared and led the people into a new era.
Since it is one of God’s Principles, during a period of confusion, to raise up a central figure that can gain control over the environment, Satan imitates this method and does the same thing. At the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, for example, Lenin emerged and became the central person, controlling the situation and pulling the whole country in his direction. This is another example of the law of the dominion of center.
Which is more important, the central figure or the environment? Communists say that the environment is more important, based on their materialistic ideology, which claims that spirit is a product of matter and that man is just a product of the environment. Man’s spiritual value is secondary in this system. They say that when the environment becomes confused and suitable for a revolution, the needed revolutionary leaders will naturally appear. They feel, therefore, that environment is fundamentally more important than leaders. Unification Thought differs from the communist view. Although both the central figure and the environment are considered important and necessary, Unification Thought stresses the role of the central figure (subject), rather than that of the environment, since it recognizes the law of the dominion of center.
Every time a central person was unable to fulfill his portion of responsibility, providential history was prolonged. This means there is only one central person in each stage of the providence. If it had not been for Moses (or a Moses-like figure), would the Israelites have been able to leave Egypt and enter Canaan? No, they would not. Likewise, if it had not been for Lenin (or a Lenin-like figure), the Bolshevik Revolution would not have been successful.
Not just anyone can become a central person; God selects someone who has the proper personality, knowledge, leadership ability, and other essential qualities. (Satan, who hinders the providence of God, chooses his central figures in the same way.) Even if Trotsky had possessed the leadership qualities that Lenin had, it would have been very difficult for him to carry out a successful revolution, for he thought it necessary to bring about world revolution first, before a revolution in Russia could be successful. If he had led the Russian Revolution, it would probably have ended in failure. Similarly, the Chinese Revolution was successful primarily due to its leadership—that of Mao Tse-tung. It would not have been successful with only Liu Shao-chi and Chou En-lai.
Though the central figure is very important, yet there can be no subject without an object. Consequently, God raises up a particular central person only after He has prepared a suitable environment. This person is the only one who can meet the necessary conditions; he is the only one who can be relied upon. In the Old Testament age, for instance, God gave Noah’s family a mission, but they failed. After that, there was no other family that God could use immediately; thus, providential history was prolonged. Although there are various reasons for the prolongation of providential history until today, the main reason is that at crucial points the central persons have failed, and there was no one else to succeed them.
Should we direct our energies into reforming the environment, or should we try to reform man first? In Marx’s opinion, the environment is more important; thus, he tried to change it. We, however, feel that we should first work to reform the human spirit.
Communists say verbally that the environment is of greater importance; in actuality, however, they carry out very extensive education programs to develop their leaders, showing that they, also, know that man is more important than the environment, and unconsciously recognize the law of the dominion of the center. They say that leaders will naturally arise from the environment, after they have put society into confusion (just as spirit comes from matter), yet they make a great effort to train people in the communist ideology.
If a great leader appears and fulfills his responsibility, he can mold the environment and move it into the proper direction. No matter how hard the general populace struggles to find a way out of social confusion, unless a leader appears to take charge, no improvement will be made.
Most young communists in the free world have been taught that to assert the importance of leaders is bourgeoisie mentality. In a free country, they oppose the appearance of leaders in principle and in action, for this reason; another reason is that the emergence of a great leader might work against their revolutionary fomentations. By contrast, we assert the law of the dominion of the center.
(d) The Law of Completion Through Three Stages
All things should be perfected after passing through the three stages of growth-that is, formation, growth, and completion. The providence of restoration, also, passes through three stages, but cannot be prolonged beyond this. Failure in the formation stage carries with it a prolongation of providential history and leads to the growth stage. Failure in the growth stage causes another prolongation and leads to the completion stage. Once in the completion stage, the providence must necessarily succeed.
In the providence for restoring a family, both Adam’s family and Noah’s family failed. Abraham’s family, therefore, had necessarily to succeed. Since Abraham made a mistake, God had to call his son Isaac and then Jacob, whose victory could be taken as Abraham’s victory. This explains why, to this day, the Jews call God “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” The three patriarchs are as one.
Similarly, the third Adam must necessarily fulfill the purpose of the providence of restoration. If he fails in one direction, he must succeed in another. In Jesus’ case, he had only one possible course; when the people failed to accept him, he had nowhere to go.
Just as God works His providence through three stages, Satan’s movement, also, develops through three stages. Furthermore, just as on God’s side there is the “law of completion through three stages,” on Satan’s side we find its counterpart, the “law of inevitable failure through three stages.” Communism is the third stage of a movement whose first stage is humanism (Renaissance), and whose second stage was the Enlightenment. Consequently, the fall of communism is inevitable. Moreover, since communism—an atheistic thought—persecutes Christianity, it is bound to fail, just as God’s providence in its third stage is bound to succeed.
The Roman Empire reigned with its Pax Romana for two hundred years. It seemed so strong, and nobody thought it would ever fall, though some people recognized certain signs of decay. Constantine the Great, who officially recognized Christianity, and Theodosius I, who declared Christianity the state religion, were believed to be God-instated emperors. Why, then, did God allow the empire to fall? Because, though they were God-instated, nevertheless they exploited Christianity for their own gain.
Clearly, the time in which a non-principled nation appears to be most prosperous is the time closest to its end. Communism, which has extended its power throughout the world (as the completion stage of the powers opposing God), is destined to fail.
(e) The Law of the Period of the Number Six
According to Genesis, God commanded that there be light on the first day, and there was light. On the second day, He created the firmament and separated the waters above and below it. On the third day, He separated the earth and the sea and created plants on the earth. On the fourth day, He created the sun, moon, and stars; on the fifth, animals; and on the sixth day, He created man (Adam and Eve). We can see, therefore, that Adam was created with the period of the number six. This period of the number six applies also to the providence of re-creation. Accordingly, God had to start a new providence six centuries before sending Jesus (Second Adam).
The Greek civilization emerged about the sixth century B.C., with the providential purpose primarily to develop man’s environment and to form a basis on which to accept the Messiah. The Greeks developed science, art, mathematics, politics, philosophy, and other fields of knowledge to a high degree.
On the other hand, God also prepared the hearts of men to receive Jesus. In the East, He sent Confucius, Mencius, and Lao-tzu, around the sixth century B.C., to show men how to live conscientiously. The purpose of all this preparation was for people to accept—not to reject—Jesus, six centuries later.
In India, Gautama Buddha appeared about six centuries before Christ in order to turn the minds of the Indian people toward goodness. At that time, Brahmanism had developed a rigid and discriminatory caste system. The lowest class comprised the Sudras, or manual laborers (who, incidentally, were the indigenous natives); these were followed by the Vaisyas, who were merchants, tradesmen, and farmers. Then came the Kshatriyas who were formed of warriors, rulers, and royalty; on top of these there were the Brahmins, or the priestly class. These distinctions were extremely rigid; inter-caste marriage was strictly prohibited. Members of different castes were forbidden even to eat meals together.
With such class consciousness, they would have been unable to receive Jesus, who was to teach that we ought to love every person equally, just as the sun shines on all without discrimination. Accordingly, Buddha appeared and taught that every person, regardless of class, partakes of the Buddha nature—thus advocating the equality of all humans.
Six centuries before Christ, the Israelites were taken into exile in Babylon. The leadership had fallen into faithlessness, and the value of the temple could no longer be upheld. In order to renew the Jewish faith, God allowed them to be taken to an unknown land, where they had to work hard until they became repentant. Many prophets—such as Jeremiah and later, Malachi—attempted to lead the people back to a faithful life. At the same time, Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other scholars appeared in Greece, and the Greek civilization developed to a high degree.
Around the sixth century B.C., therefore, great leaders appeared both in the East and in the West, though there was no actual contact between them. This is the period that Jaspers calls the Axial Era. What is the significance of it? Historians are still pondering this question. Actually, all of these leaders appeared about the same time in order to lay a foundation to receive the Messiah. According to the law of the period of the number six, God worked to re-create the spirit of man by sending intellectual and spiritual leaders six centuries before He sent the Messiah.
A similar providence was carried out in preparation for the Second Coming of the Messiah. The Renaissance and the Reformation, which began around the fourteenth century and were in full swing by the sixteenth century, marked the beginning of this preparation.
The purpose of the Renaissance was to prepare a suitable environment for the coming of the Messiah. It was to bring back that high level of material civilization in Europe, which had existed in the times of the Greek and Roman Empires, but had withered away after Jesus’ crucifixion. Thus, the civilization initiated by the Renaissance started out as an imitation of the Greek civilization, and then developed along a materialistic path. Partly, it was a reaction to medieval Christianity, which had neglected the restoration of man’s environment. This can be called the Hyung Sang culture.
A reformation of Christianity was also necessary to restore man’s spiritual life. The leaders of the church at the end of the Middle Ages had become corrupt and trampled upon the fundamental rights of man. The Christian practices of that age were somewhat similar to the discriminatory practices of Brahmanism referred to before. God, therefore, brought about a democratic movement in religion—the Reformation. Christianity itself had to go through this reformation in order to be prepared for the Second Coming of the Messiah.
The remark could be made that few spiritual leaders like the ones who appeared around the sixth century B.C. arose at the time of the Reformation. The reason is that such leaders did not have to appear again. There was no need, for instance, for Confucius to come again; the people only had to put into practice what he had already taught. The same applies to Buddha. The teachings of the religious leaders of the past were still valid; they only had to be practiced. Actually, those teachings should have been fulfilled and unified by Jesus, but he was unable to do that, because of the crucifixion. The world is still waiting for his return. Confucianism and Buddhism have been waiting for more than two thousand years for the fulfillment of their religious teachings. Likewise, Islam, founded by Mohammed in the Middle East in the sixth century, has been waiting for this time.
God has kept the religions of the world alive in order to prepare man to accept the Messiah. When the Messiah comes, all these religions should recognize him and complete their missions by accepting his teachings and following him.
Confucianists will accept the Messiah from the Confucian standpoint; Buddhist, from the Buddhist standpoint. All religions will become one by centering on the Word of God as revealed by the Messiah. The Word of God revealed by the Messiah is broad enough to encompass the various aspects of all religions. Confucianists will say that the Word brought by the Messiah is the same as the teachings of Confucianism; Buddhists will see it as identical to the teachings of Buddhism, and so forth.
All the existing religions today have lost their ability to guide mankind, as traditional values are increasingly being discarded. God is preparing man to accept the Word of the Messiah.
The law of the period of the number six has been guiding history—it transcends the thoughts of man. It can, therefore, be called a transcendent, or objective law.
(f) The Law of Responsibility
When man fulfills his responsibility, God’s will, expressed through the providence of restoration, is realized; when man fails to do so, the attainment of the goal of history is postponed. Responsibility is given to each providential figure; he must carry it out with his own wisdom, creativity, and effort. Unfortunately, almost all the providential figures in the past have been unable to carry out their responsibilities. Restoration history, therefore, has been prolonged until now.
For example, if John the Baptist, the priests, the scribes, and other leaders of Jesus’ day had carried out their responsibilities, Jesus would not have been crucified. The Kingdom of God would have been realized at that time.
Marxist determinism claims that slave society must turn into feudal society, and feudal society into capitalist society. But if the people at the time of the Roman Empire (which Marx calls a slave society) had carried out their responsibility, the seeds of the Kingdom could have been sown then.
If Marx had lived at the time of Jesus, he would have had to say that communist society (the “kingdom of heaven” on the communist side) could not be realized for another two thousand years, until after the slave society of the Roman Empire had faded and passed into feudal society, and this had passed into capitalist society, which would then have to be overthrown by violent revolution. Thus placed in perspective, we can see how ridiculous such ideas would have been; they would actually have hindered the development of history. Definitely, if only man had done his part, the Kingdom of Heaven could have been realized at the time of Jesus. It was not God’s desire for the providence to be prolonged or for man’s suffering to continue. People were not aware, however, that they had such a responsibility. The law of responsibility exists independently of man’s will; it is a transcendent, or objective law.
To abide by the law of responsibility was originally that which Adam had to do in his period of growth. God’s creation would be perfected after Adam perfected himself by accomplishing his responsibility. The law of responsibility, therefore, is also one of the laws of creation and applies to all ages. Adam’s responsibility (as the representative of all mankind) has been transmitted to the providential figures in the history of restoration, especially to the second Adam and the third Adam.
2. The Laws of Restoration
Through the providence of restoration, God has been continuously working to restore fallen man back to his original position. As He is a God of law and principle, He carried out His providence of restoration not in a haphazard way, but by observing definite laws. The most important of these laws are as follows: (a) the law of indemnity; (b) the law of separation; (c) the law of the restoration of the number four; (d) the law of the conditioned providence; (e) the law of the false preceding the true; (f) the law of the horizontal reappearance of the vertical; and (g) the law of synchronous providence.
(a) The Law of Indemnity
How is fallen man to be restored to his original state? First, he must establish the foundation of faith, by setting up certain conditions; then, the foundation of substance, by obeying the providential figure of his age. By doing so, he will lay the foundation to receive the Messiah (see “Introduction to the Providence of Restoration” in the Unification Principle). All this is known as restoration through indemnity.
In opposition to God’s will, however, people usually persecute the providential person, instead of uniting with him. Numerous providential figures have been martyred in their mission—such as Jesus, the best example, as well as other righteous persons and prophets. The law of indemnity, therefore, refers to a life of persecution, tribulation, and sacrifice for the restoration of mankind.
The providential figures of restoration history could not but walk the course of indemnity in order to save sinners. The law of indemnity could be described also as the law of affliction. Not only the individuals that stood as God’s representatives, but also families, tribes, and nation on the Heavenly side have had to walk a difficult path. Through the law of indemnity the reason for the suffering of righteous persons all throughout history can be clarified for the first time. When fallen men set up conditions of faith, it is difficult for them to avoid the persecution, abuse, and misunderstanding of persons around them. Accordingly, even when ordinary conscientious persons (not necessarily providential individuals) try to go the way of true faith, they are always afflicted with problems. This is also because of the law of indemnity; God can use these indemnity conditions gradually to restore the fallen world.
(b) The Law of Separation
This law goes together with the law of indemnity. In order to restore our fallen society, God selects certain figures as His representatives in certain ages—such as Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. God chose representatives not only from among the Israelites, but also from among the people of many other nations. From among the Israelites, God chose those with the strongest faith; from among the people of other nations—which at times did not even believe in God—He chose those who were righteous and closest to His ways. That is how the law of separation works, by which God is separating the good world from the evil world.
After God chooses His representatives and separates them from the evil world by this law, He does not allow them to lead a quiet life; He makes them fight against evil, not with weapons, but with His Word. While teaching the Word of God and instructing people on how to live according to God’s will, they are often brutally attacked by evil people. The base of goodness, however, sooner or later wins and expands. Throughout history, therefore, we always see good families struggling against evil families, good clans against evil clans, and good nations against evil nations.
This sheds a different light on the communists’ claim that significant struggles throughout history have been caused by class struggles; according to Unification Thought, they have actually been caused by struggles between good and evil. History is full of examples of struggles not involving class struggles. The Persian War, the Phoenician War, the Hundred Years’ War, the Prussian-Austrian War, the Prussian-French War, and the Russian-Turkish War—these were all racial or national struggles. On the other hand, the Spanish War, the Seven Years’ War, the Crimean War, World Wars I and II—these were wars involving alliances. Furthermore, the Huguenot War, the Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War, and the Puritan Revolution were religious wars.
Of course, a few struggles in history were class struggles—such as the French Revolution and the Farmers’ War in Germany. But even in these cases, we can regard the opposing classes as representing good and evil sides. Obviously, the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are used here in a relative way. In a struggle between two opposing groups, though neither side may be called ‘good’ in the absolute sense, nevertheless one side is usually closer to God’s will and providence than the other.
Whenever there is a struggle between good and evil, the evil side always attacks first. In the Korean War, it was North Korea who attacked first; based on this principle, we can say that North Korea was on the evil side. In all struggles in history, the good side retaliates against the attacks of the evil side and sooner or later wins victory. The good side tries to subdue its opponent with words and with love; the evil side, however, usually brings out physical weapons and provokes a physical battle. By observing who initiates violence, therefore, we can often find out which one is the evil side.
Once good and evil have been separated, good is referred to as Abel, and evil as Cain—based on the situation of Adam’s family, in which Abel represented good, and Cain represented evil. In today’s world, the communist block represents Cain, while the free world represents Abel. In order to be successful and obtain victory over the communist block, the leaders of the free world—the Abel side—must fully understand and be obedient to God’s will. If they fail to do this, then the free world will suffer greatly at the hands of the communist power, just as the Israelites of the Old Testament suffered at the hands of the Gentiles.
(c) The Law of the Restoration of the Number Four
Fallen man has lost the original quadruple base. Adam and Eve should have become husband and wife centering on God; they should have given birth to sinless children, to form the family quadruple base centered on God. Because of the Fall, however, they formed the quadruple base centering on Satan. Consequently, the goal of history has been to restore the lost quadruple base centered on God—that is, to restore the number four. This was Jesus’ mission as the Second Adam; tragically, he was crucified before being able fully to accomplish his mission. The responsibility to restore the quadruple base now lies with the Lord of the Second Advent.
Providential history is the history of restoring the quadruple base. It has been a tremendous task. In order to establish the God-centered family quadruple base, God must send the Messiah, for whom careful preparation is to be made. We can say that the four thousand years until the arrival of Jesus were no more than a preparatory period to receive the Messiah. Just as a runway must be prepared before an airplane can land, the period of the number four must be prepared before the Messiah can arrive. In order to lay this foundation, God has been working to restore the number four. The restoration of the number four is, therefore, the conditional restoration of the quadruple base. Hence, God carried out the providence of Noah’s flood with the number forty. The period of four hundred years after the failure of Noah’s family until the providence of Abraham is also an example of the providence of restoring the number four.
Even after God restores the period of the number four (by waiting forty years, or four hundred years), Satan tries to take it back again by destroying the foundation of faith which should be set up after that period. If Satan succeeds, God will continue to restore the period over and over again by the providence of the number four. This is the reason the numbers four, forty, and four hundred appear so often in history. Arnold Toynbee is one of the few historians who noticed this. He mentioned four centuries of conflict and disunity before the establishment of order and unity, without making clear the reason for the appearance of such a period.
For example, the time period between the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in 431 B.C. until the establishment of Pax Augusta in 31 B.C. was precisely four centuries. In China, likewise, it was four centuries from the time the Second Han Dynasty split into three nations until the reunification under the T’ang Dynasty. In Japan, also, there were four centuries of disunity from the Kamakura period until the unification of Japan by Hideyoshi. These are examples cited in A Study of History and Civilization on Trial by Arnold Toynbee.
In addition to these examples, the Japanese occupied and ruled Korea for forty years, from the signing of the Eul Sa Treaty in 1905—when Korea gave up her rights to conduct independent foreign relations—until Korea’s release from the Japanese domination in 1945.
These are examples of the application of the law of the restoration of the number four.
(d) The Law of Conditioned Providence
The final purpose of God’s providence is to send the Messiah. In order to do this, God prepared the Israelites during the Old Testament Age. One of the things they had to do was to fulfill the requirements of the law of conditioned providence.
The law of conditioned providence means the establishment, through the work of the providence, of an act or event that is actually significant and, at the same time, symbolizes the content of an act or event that will happen in the future, conditioning or determining—though not entirely—the content of the future act or event. Accordingly, the content and the direction of an act or event in restoration history—especially at the time of the coming of the Messiah—have been determined, to some extent, by the way the previous act or event was performed in history.
The things centering on the ark of Noah, for instance, effected the judgment of sinners at that time, while also foreshadowing acts and events that would take place at the coming of Jesus. The flood judgment symbolized the future judgment to be carried out by Jesus. Noah sent out a dove from the ark three times; it came back after the first and second times, but did not return after the third time. This was a warning about future events, foreshadowing matters relating to man’s portion of responsibility upon the arrival of the Messiah. The first dove, which went back to the ark, symbolized the first Adam, who failed to realize God’s ideal on earth. The second dove, which went back to the ark with an olive leaf in its beak, symbolized the second Adam, Jesus. The story about the second dove signifies that, if the faith of the people were not sufficient, Jesus would not be able to remain on earth; he would do so only if there was enough faith. The third dove, which did not go back to the ark, symbolized the third Adam, the Lord of the Second Coming. The story about the third dove signifies that, when Christ comes again, he will be able to realize God’s ideal of creation on earth without fail.
The providence centering on the tabernacle, at the time of Moses, was the providence to strengthen the belief of the Israelites; at the same time, it foreshadowed the responsibility or mission of the Israelites at the coming of Jesus. The two tablets of stone that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai, on which the Ten Commandments were written, symbolized Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The tabernacle symbolized the Messiah; later, the temple was built as an image of the Messiah. Through these, God administered strict training to the Israelites. This is an instance of the application of the Law of Conditioned Providence; by learning how to attend God through serving and honoring the tabernacle and the temple, the Israelites were actually preparing themselves to attend the Messiah when he came.
Another example is the act of striking the rock twice by Moses. The rock symbolized Jesus; striking it twice was a condition that enabled Satan to claim the body of Jesus. If Moses had struck the rock only once—in other words, if he had maintained his heart of faithful attendance to God—perhaps Jesus would not have had to die. The reason is that, even if the Israelites became faithless toward Jesus, God would have been able to call others to take their place, by believing in, and attending Jesus. Thus, God could have prevented Satan from invading Jesus’ body.
We can see, therefore, that a conditioned providence at a certain point in time can have great influence upon the work of the providence at a later time. In Noah’s case, if he had understood the significance of what he was doing from the point of view of conditioned providence, his family might not have failed. If he had gathered his three sons and made them agree that, even if one of them violated God’s providence, he himself was not to be blamed, that would have become a condition for him to attain success in his mission. In this case, if Ham failed, Noah could have put another son in his place.
Numerous providential persons failed to accomplish their responsibility due to the lack of understanding of the significance of their actions and circumstances in the light of the law of conditioned providence. Moses did not actually know whether to hit the rock once or twice. If he had been completely faithful to Heaven, however, he would have found out intuitively that the rock was not to be hit twice. Because of his anger, caused by the constant grumbling of the Israelites, he hit the rock twice—with tragic consequences. We can learn from this that leaders must take care not to express their anger in a self-centered way.
(e) The Law of the False Preceding the True
Before the true Messiah comes, a messiah-like figure on the Satanic side will appear. Likewise, before the true Heavenly Kingdom comes, a false heavenly kingdom will appear.
Satan, who was originally a good archangel created by God, believes that he can build an ideal world without God’s help. God has had no choice but to allow him to try, for Satan has been the ruler of the created world since the fall of man. Satan has a lot more knowledge than fallen man, because he helped God to create the universe. God’s desire is for his most beloved children to create the Heavenly Kingdom on earth, but Satan wants to do that by himself. God, therefore, has been carrying out the providence after Satan has attempted to do it his own way.
Before Jesus came, Julius Caesar appeared as the head of the Roman Empire. Caesar stood in the position of messiah on the Satanic side. Together with Emperor Antonius he created Pax Romana and united a huge area centering on the Mediterranean. It was an intercontinental state, which developed the highest culture the world had ever seen. It was a false heavenly kingdom, preceding the true unified world that should have been created through the messianic work of Jesus.
In our own time, Stalin appeared as the false messiah, preceding the Second Coming of the True Messiah. He tried to create a unified world based on communism and managed to unite the communist parties of the world, centering on his country’s communist party (Comintern).
Stalin’s death in 1953 signaled the end of the mission of the false messiah and the formal beginning of the mission of the Messiah of the Second Advent. The mission of Jesus is to be inherited by the Lord of the Second Advent. Communism appeared as the false thought, proposed by the false messiah; this heralds the coming of the true thought, which is brought to the world by the true Messiah. Similarly, the formation of the unified communist front heralds the appearance of a unified world on the side of good. Based upon the law of the false preceding the true, we can know that the time for these things to happen is at hand.
Before starting his world-level mission, the Messiah will first appear in a certain nation. Consequently, before the Messiah comes, a messiah-like figure on the side of evil must appear in that nation and proclaim himself to be the parent of the people. This person is none other than Kim II Sung, of North Korea. He is instructing his people to call him their “honorable parent.” Nowhere in the communist ideology is the word “parent” used to describe a communist leader; why, then, does Kim II Sung, a communist leader, expect his people to call him their parent? Though he may be unaware of it, he is doing this in compliance with the law of the false preceding the true.
(f) The Law of the Horizontal Reappearance of the Vertical
In this context, ‘vertical’ refers to historical time, while ‘horizontal’ refers to the actual world. Accordingly, this law means that events that took place in the past will recur at the present time. Through studying the principle of restoration we can understand the significance of the events and the missions given to the central figures of the Old Testament period, such as Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. The missions carried out by those people are now being repeated (on the world-wide level), because they were never fully completed before.
Noah’s family failed to complete their mission, leaving their indemnity condition unfulfilled. The same applies to Abraham. Consequently, most of the major problems of restoration history remain unsolved. God, therefore, works the providence to make these events and figures reappear, so that the past unfulfilled indemnity conditions can be completely solved. Of course, the events of the present time will not be exactly the same as the ones of the past; neither will the required conditions be exactly identical to those of the past. Nevertheless, in each case the principle is repeated. Certainly, God will not cause a great flood today—as He did at the time of Noah—yet He does ask providential persons to go through the same types of trials as Noah had to go through. Another example of the application of this law is that the ancient conflicts between the Israelites and the gentiles have reappeared today as conflicts between Israel and the Arabic nations.
The last days are prophetically depicted as days of chaos, turmoil, and uncertainty. These are the phenomena of the reappearance of historical events that have been left unsolved in the providential history. These unsolved matters cannot be allowed to remain so; if they do, the providence of restoration will not be completed, and the sinful history of man will not terminate.
How, then, will these historical problems be completely solved? This is only possible with the Second Advent. When people accept and follow the instructions of the Messiah, all the complex global problems will be solved. Furthermore, the six thousand years of sinful history will end completely. When all the historical problems are solved by the Messiah, God will be able to consider these last six thousands years as sinless history, because God’s long-cherished desire has always been to forget mankind’s sad and sinful history and to receive joy forever, by loving us as His true children.
(g) The Law of Synchronous Periods
When in the course of providential history there is an event that delays it, God repeats the providence, by arranging for a similar event to occur, in a similar period of time, and with similar persons. The providence that took two thousand years from the time of Abraham until the arrival of Jesus was left unfulfilled because of Jesus’ crucifixion. God, therefore, began a similar providence right after the death of Jesus.
The period of persecution of the Christians under the Roman Empire is similar to the period of slavery the Israelites had to go through in Egypt. The Christian patriarchal period corresponds to the Old Testament period of the Judges. The Christian Empire (the Frankish Empire, started by Charlemagne) corresponds to the United Kingdom (founded by Saul). The period of the divided kingdom of East (East Frankish Empire) and West (West Frankish Empire) corresponds to that of the divided kingdom of North (Israel) and South (Judah). The papal captivity and return (1309-1377) corresponds to the Jewish captivity and return. Finally, the period of preparation for the Second Coming, starting from the Reformation led by Martin Luther, Calvin, and others, corresponds to the period of preparation for the coming of Christ, which began at the time of Malachi. After this period of preparation, the Messiah will be able to come. These are the six stages of the religious synchronous providence.3
There is also the synchronous political and economic providence, which has four stages: the Old Testament (Israelite) clan society, feudal society, monarchic society, and democratic-type society. Politically, these have been synchronized, in the A.D. era, with the early church society, the feudal society, the absolute monarchic society, and the Christian democratic society; and economically, with the slave-society, the manor system (feudalism), capitalism, and democratic socialism.
D. Basic Laws of Historical Change
1. Development and Give-and-Take Law; Turning and Repulsion Law
Marxism has rightly asserted that human history has developed according to certain laws. Nevertheless, the Marxist law of development—that is, the development by class struggle—is not right. In the Unification Thought view of history, the development of history is the result of give-and-take actions between subject and object; in other words, development takes place according to the give-and-take law. Politics, economics, and culture have developed through the harmonious give-and-take action between individual and individual, between group (or individual) and group, between person and things, and among things. Examples: the relationships between government and citizens, manager and laborers, worker and machine, machine and machine; all of these are relationships of subject and object. This is called the Law of Give-and-Take Action, or briefly, the Give-and-Take Law.
Give-and-take action is always carried out between subject (+) and object (-), not between subject (+) and subject (+).The action between subject and subject is repulsive—that is, they refuse to unite and, actually, repel each other. The reason for their mutual repulsion is that this very action causes a strengthening of the give-and-take action between subject and object. The action of repulsion usually works invisibly in the natural world; it works latently, supporting the give-and-take action between subject and object. This law can also be applied to history. The repelling force between the two subjects appears in the form of struggle between good and evil. In history the actions of repulsion appear visibly.4
Adam and Eve should have become one through give-and-take action in their respective positions of subject and object. The archangel, however, appeared and, leaving his own position, became Eve’s subject and controlled her. There was only one person in the object-position—Eve; consequently, both Adam and the archangel stood in the subject-position.
This situation is unprincipled, because, although there can be two or more objects centering on one subject, there can never be two subjects for one object. For example, there are many planets revolving around the sun; in an atom, many electrons orbit one nucleus; but it is impossible for a single object to revolve around two subjects, either in celestial relationships or in atoms. The situation of having two subjects for one object, however, has appeared because of man’s Fall. Such a relationship is unprincipled and cannot last; either Adam or the archangel has to forfeit his subject-position. Since Adam fell through Eve’s temptation, the result was that Satan remained as the only subject. Thus, the principled relationship of one subject and one object was manifested in pseudo-form—that is, centered on Satan.
This is the way human history came to be sinful history. God began working immediately to overcome the evil subject, by selecting a good subject to oppose him. By using the law of separation, God has called people from the sinful world to confront and win victory over the evil subject in order to advance His providence. Lo fact, the history of the last six thousand years has been the history of struggle between the subject on the good (Abel) side and the subject on the evil (Cain) side.
Struggles, therefore, are a manifestation of the repulsion between subject and subject—not between subject and object. The only possible relationship between subject and object is that of give-and-take action, not struggle.
Satan is loath to give up his sovereignty. When the leader on the side of good (good subject) first appears, there is bound to occur a struggle between him and the leader on the side of evil (evil subject). This struggle, which can be either ideological or physical, will result in the eventual victory of the good side over the evil side—at least in the long run. After all these things have taken place, it remains to be seen whether the good leader will maintain the attitude of a good subject over the people, or will become corrupt himself. If he does become corrupt—thus becoming a leader on the evil side—then he himself will have to face a struggle with another new leader, who will have gained popular support through give-and-take action with the people. Thus, the process is repeated.
If development comes about through give-and-take action and has nothing to do with struggle, then what is the significance of struggle? Through the process explained above, struggle plays the role of turning the direction of history toward goodness. Whenever the good side wins, history turns somewhat toward the direction of goodness. In this way, restoration has been making slow but steady progress, with the degree of goodness determining the degree of restoration.
Once the direction is changed, give-and-take action takes place and development occurs. This process may be compared to what takes place when a car is about to turn. The engine moves the car forward; the brake and the steering wheel are used for changing direction. The engine can be likened to give-and-take action, and applying the brake and steering wheel can be likened to the struggle between good and evil. Thus, the fact that the direction of history can be turned through the struggle between good and evil can be viewed as an application of the law of repulsion or repulsion law.
God separated Abel, Noah, Abraham, and other providential persons, from the sinful world. He has even called persons that were not among the elect to be leaders on the side of good and guide mankind out of darkness, according to the law of separation.
Struggle, however is not a requisite in restoration history. Though a certain leader errs and causes dissatisfaction among his people, he may, nevertheless, perceive the will of God and change his policies, thus eliminating the need for struggle. In this case, the direction of history will be turned to the good side without struggle. If struggle does occur, it is always between two subjects, one of whom is comparatively closer to God’s will than the other.
Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not correct to say that historical struggles are struggles between the ruling and the ruled. During the Bolshevik Revolution, for instance, not all the Russian people supported Lenin. He appeared as a new leader, speaking out for the Russian people, whose living conditions had been very miserable. Like Marx and indeed most communist leaders, Lenin was from the intellectual class, not from the working or farming class. Knowledge is one of the prerequisites of a leader. Lenin stood as subject to a part of the ruled class (the masses) and through give-and-take action with them, he gained power. At that time, however, there was a group of people that supported Kerensky’s provisional government; these wanted to solve the problems in a relatively good manner. The struggle that occurred, then, was a struggle between two leaders, both of whom had the support from a group of loyal followers. It was a struggle between two subjects—i.e., Kerensky and Lenin.
Struggle does not bring about historical development, but hinders it. Whether it be a revolution, a war, or a riot, once it begins, every kind of give-and-take action is hindered, chaos spreads, and development is interrupted.
Here the objection n may be raised with regard to the tremendous scientific and technological progress that was made during war times in the past. The United States, for example, developed the pilotless plane during the Vietnam War. Nevertheless, can we actually say that this plane was developed through the process of struggle? No! Though the Vietnam War was the impetus for this invention, nevertheless the plane itself was not invented at the battlefront. On the contrary, it was the result of the cooperation between scientists, technicians, workers, and others, who worked at a place very distant from the war zone. The pilotless plane, therefore, was made through harmonious give-and-take action, not through struggle.
War may be one of the occasion suggesting the impetus for scientific development; it is not, however, the only one, and certainly, not an essential factor. The airplane, for instance, was invented to carry persons and transport goods; it was a great step forward for mankind. A pilotless plane, on the other hand, constructed to carry bombs, cannot be called a positive contribution to humanity, and if scientists had used the techniques they developed to construct the pilotless plane for peaceful purpose, they might have made more progress than they have. It is of paramount importance to develop technology that can be used to serve mankind in times of peace.
Wars have caused unbelievable destruction and wastage of natural resources, human lives, cultural resources, etc. Only when wars are over does development begin again. The Russian economy took a ten-year step backwards after the Bolshevik Revolution broke out. It took the Russians until 1927 to bring their economy back to the pre-revolution level. Though struggle does retard historical development, nonetheless we should remember that when the good side wins, the direction of history is changed to one of comparative goodness. A motorist must apply the brake and turn the steering wheel if he wants to make a change in direction. Similarly: society’s development has to be restrained, or even stopped (through struggle), before socio-historical change can occur.
In conclusion, socio-historical development can only occur according to the law of give-and-take action; on the other hand, the turnings in historical direction come about according to the law of repulsion. Definitely, history does not develop through dialectic struggle (Fig. 32)
2. The Law of Willed Action
History has developed through the give-and-take action between subject and object—that is, between man and his fellow men, between man and nature, and between man and his social environment. Here, let us discuss the aspect of give-and-take action between man and the natural and social environment.
Marx described productive forces and relations of productions only within the materialistic framework. Since in his view spirit comes from matter, he maintained also that the various forms of ideas (which are nothing but spirit applied to social phenomena) are derived from the relations of production (which are material). The Unification View of History, however, maintain that the productive forces and the relations of production themselves are the result of give-and-take relationships between man and nature and between man and the social environnment, to say nothing of relationships between man and man. Stone implements, for instance, the primary tools during the stone age, were made through the give-and-take action between man’s desire and the stone (matter). The steam engine was the product of give-and-take action between Watt’s inventive desire and the socio-material conditions of his time. The Russian Revolution, establishing new relations of production, was brought about through give-and-take action between the revolutionary desires of the leaders—foremost of whom was Lenin—and the social environment of Russia at that time.
Thus, the development of human society needs both man’s will and socio-material conditions-that is, the Sung Sang element and the Hyung Sang element. This assertion is based on the Unification Principle view that development is a multiplication that i brought about by the give-and-take action between Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, in which Sung Sang plays the dominating and central role in relation to Hyung Sang. Accordingly, in the development of history, man’s will has played a decisive role when compared to socio-material conditions—the opposite conclusion to that arrived at by the historical materialistic view.
E. Cultural History
Human history is cultural history. The world that God originally intended to create was a world rich in cultural splendor. If it were not for the Fall of man, human history would have been the account of how the original culture (the Unified Culture, or the Moderate-Harmonious Civilization5) had prospered. As we know, however, history has displayed a continuous rise and fall of non-principled civilizations.
God always begins with one, whether it be in the creation process or in providential history. God did not create Adam and Eve at the same time. He first created Adam as the subject, and then Eve, as the object. Adam and Eve were later supposed to form a family and raise up good children. The providence of restoration, also, began with one. God chose one family, that of Abraham, before forming a clan and a nation—the Israelites.
In the same way, God does not bring salvation to all people at the same time. He first chooses one nation as His elect and sends the Messiah to that nation to save it first; then, by extending the sphere of salvation, He works to save all mankind. Knowing this, we can distinguish the central history, by focusing on God’s chosen people, and the peripheral history, that is, the history of all other peoples. Culturally, there is a central history of culture and a peripheral history of culture. Within the central history of culture we can also distinguish Sung Sang culture and Hyung Sang culture, the former being the culture stemming from Hebraism, and the latter being the culture stemming from Hellenism.
Let us first investigate the flow of Hellenism, the Hyung Sang culture. Developed in Greece, Hellenism was then inherited by the Roman Empire, as its culture. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Hellenism was preserved in Constantinople and in the Islamic civilization. In modern times, it entered Europe again during the Renaissance and stimulated the development of science and the arts.
The time following Galileo and Newton, from the seventeenth to the eighteenth centuries, saw the appearance of the rationalists on the continent (such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz), and the empiricists in Britain (such as Bacon, Hobbes, and Locke). From this line appeared the French philosophers of the Enlightenment, including, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. This led to the French Revolution.
Around the time of the French Revolution, socialist thought was developed by men such as Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, and Blanqui. Succeeding these men came Marx, then Kautsky, Bernstein, Plekhanov, and finally Lenin. Communism was imported to Russia by Plekhanov, and eventually the Communist Revolution took place under the leadership of Lenin. Russian influence then spread eastwards.
Now, let us look at Hebraism—the civilization and the thought of the Jewish people since the time of Abraham. Hebraism entered the Roman Empire from Israel, influenced the Roman civilization, and entered Germany after the fall of Rome. After shaping the Christian civilization, it ruled Europe. The Reformation in the 16th century brought about the appearance of Protestantism, and the Puritan Revolution occurred in England. Christianity also influenced the Industrial Revolution; in fact, it is the spiritual backbone of the modern Western civilization. Protestantism was brought to America on the Mayflower. After that, America succeeded Europe in developing Western civilization. From America and from Great Britain, Western civilization—which is of Hebraistic descent—also spread to the Far East, both in the scientific and in the religious fields.
Tracing Hellenism backwards, we find that the Greek civilization came from the Aegean civilization, which originated chiefly from the Egyptian civilization. The Egyptian civilization came from the Hamatic tribes.
On the other hand, Hebraism was born out of the Babylonian civilization, which originated from the Arcadian civilization. The Arcadian civilization was born out of the Sumerian civilization, as a result of the influence exerted by the Semites on the Sumerian civilization.
Incidentally, where did the Hamites and the Semites come from? Even today historians have been unable to give us a concrete answer to this question, so we have only the Bible to shed light on our inquiry. According to the Bible, Noah’s son Ham is the father of the Hamites, and his brother Shem, the father of the Semites.
According to the Principle of Restoration, Noah’s family was supposed to restore the failure of Adam’s family, in which both Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, but were not able to accomplish God’s will. After a lapse of 1600 years, Noah’s family was chosen. Ham, the second son, was established by God in the position of Abel, and Shem, the first son, in the position of Cain. Ham, however, failed his mission, and his son was cursed by Noah. After that, from the point of view of results, the positions of Ham and Shem were reversed: Ham came to have the position of Cain, and Shem the position of Abel. From among the descendants of Shem came Abraham. The descendants of Shem came to be in the historical position of Abel; the descendants of Ham, in the historical position of Cain.
Christianity grew out of Hebraism, the Sung Sang civilization. The Hyung Sang civilization is the Greek civilization. These two civilizations should have been united at the time of the Roman Empire; their unification, however, was postponed, because Jesus—the center of unification—was crucified.
We can ultimately regard human history as having been prolonged until today in order to restore the offerings of Cain and Abel. God’s will was for the Romans, who were in the position of Cain, to unite with the Israelites, who—had they accepted Jesus—would have been in the position of Abel, in order to restore through indemnity the failure of Cain and Abel and thus lay the foundation for the Kingdom of Heaven. Today, once again, communism and democracy should unite with the Messianic providence to restore through indemnity the original failure and realize the Unified or Moderate-Harmonious Civilization. (Fig. 33)
(This diagram is designed to show the essence of the two cultural streams. It does not show all the interrelationships of each age).
As was mentioned before, both of these streams have spread to the Far East. Their confrontation is most pronounced on the Korean Peninsula, which, therefore, becomes the providential focal point for their unification and the birthplace of the new culture. North Korea is well known for its espousal of communist doctrine whereas South Korea has become famous for the extraordinary growth of Christianity there.
Whether Christian democracy can fulfill its responsibility or not is at the moment a matter of grave concern. As Toynbee pointed out, Marxism is an accusation against the shortcomings of Christianity. It appeared with the intention of liberating poor majorities, such as laborers and farmers, but is now trampling down human rights, restricting freedom, and suppressing true values.
At the time of the Industrial Revolution, Christians should have practiced Christian love, denouncing the greed of capitalists and the exploitative inhumanity of the industrialists, as well as resisting the influence of those who had begun to worship material things. However, numerous Christians turned a blind eye toward the greed of the bourgeoisie, and Christianity more often than not supported the exploitation. Calvinism—especially its doctrine of Predestination—was a wonderful aid in legitimizing these activities.
Consequently, Marx regarded both capitalists and Christians as one and the same-that is, as enemies of the workers. There were other reasons for Marx’s opposition to Christianity—such as his father’s conversion, Jewish problems, his suspicion of Hegel, oppression by the Prussian government—but I will not go into detail on these points here.
The very fact that communism exists is proof of Christianity’s failure. Christianity has lost the power, the sense of duty, and the sense of responsibility that it needs in order to overcome communism and to offer young people a higher ideal.
The Unification Church is taking on that responsibility. It seeks to awaken Christians throughout the world and to overcome communism with its message, thus reconciling the long divided Sung Sang and Hyung Sang cultures. This is the stream of the central providential and cultural history.
Notes
1 Hegel frequently used the terms ‘Logos’, ‘absolute spirit,’ ‘idea’ (Begriff), and ‘spirit’; instead of the word ‘God’.
2 The providential view presented here is based on St. Augustine’s ideas. Though other Christian thinkers hold similar views, I have adopted St. Augustine’s view as being the most fundamental among them.
3 The term ‘synchronous’ connotes the idea that even though the new providence chronologically is at a time in history different from that of the old one, from the point of view of Restoration History they are identical. This makes the period of time itself identical, or synchronous, when viewed from Restoration History.
4 Why is this repulsion law applied to history ? It is because, by God’s providence, the leader (subject) of the good side is separated from the sinful world, being prepared to confront the leader (subject) of the evil side. In nature, therefore, the law of repulsion is concurrent with the give-and-take law; in history, it is concurrent with the separation law.
5 Moderate-Harmonious Civilization’ denotes a civilization that is harmonious in its various elements and, at the same time, moderate—i.e., neither excessive nor insufficient—both in quality and in quantity, centered on the cosmic principle.