As certain issues emerge within our community and in part as a result of the breadth of responses that develop I find myself reflecting more deeply on the issues. Sometimes such issues correspond with current research I am doing. The issue of a Unificationist caste system has evoked some concern from conservative and liberal alike. (Yes, I used that term in reference to us...)

I have noted on several occasions that consistent with our theology, we experience, in our lives of faith, dilemmas faced by people in history. We understand this is required that we face such history in part to be qualified to stand as tribal messiahs as well as that such provides us the opportunity to restore not only past failures, but to take our history past the point it had reached at the time of our True Parents' (TP's) holy wedding. We need to remind ourselves that as we confront such history and as we face such trials we needn't feel so alone and isolated that we loose perspective on the difficulties we face. Realizing that we traverse paths well worn in history also provides us with materials for reflection as we consider our responses to our ever changing situations.

By sensing our place in the history of the path of tears tread by Heavenly Father as well as so many peoples, we can temper our inclination to feel that we face unique situations not encountered previously. This allows us to participate in the continuum of history, as CO-creators with our TP's, seeking resolution & restoration in our lifetimes of problems that can open even farther the path of victory being pioneered by TP's.

The concerns over a Unification caste system, most recently expressed in regard to the Korean leadership and the perception that being Korean may bring benefits or status not earned concern me now. Previously such concerns emerged in whether certain members could rightly be called second generation as well in questions on the status of people receiving the blessing who are not either committed to Unification process of participation in the providence or even familiar with our theology. In this, I have seen a temptation on our part to create an 'in our own image' kind of ideal model of the true religious person.

This impulse is not without foundation. We are commissioned to become, on the foundation of the change of blood lineage, a new person in whom the untainted full indwelling of God is realized as never before.

Yet, I have noticed various qualifications and tests emerging in our consciousness as to whether we, with our particularly unique experiences, are the prototype of what constitutes membership and whether others are qualified to become the "new" children of God without such experiences. Such experiences include a period of celibacy, experiencing fundraising, witnessing, pioneering, or suffering through endless workshops, as well as attendance at such places as CPL.

Such considerations are not new. Christianity developed its own "model" Christian. This was the martyr. If one was like and did as Jesus, then the chances were pretty good one could end up being a martyr. Jesus even encouraged followers to take up their crosses. But as the age of martyrdom eased past, what would we reference as the "new" image of a true Christian person?

Robert Kress in his article "Everyday Life and Spiritual Discipline" notes "that the solution appeared in the guise of becoming a monk." The monk became the "new martyr" by dying "to the world, for God." Since they did not marry, have children, relinquished all claim to personal possessions, & even surrendered their will to the abbot, they in as very real way became estranged from the world, albeit it through their own free will, but no less a martyr nonetheless. The three traditional monastic vows "of obedience, poverty & chastity" became precisely death to the world, symbolic martyrdom."

Later, "rather than being a symbolic expression of Christian living and a challenge for others, it came to be regarded as 'the' Christian way of life and others were regarded as lessor and inferior." Kress further makes a point worthy of consideration for us when he points to an "official" qualification to be the "role model" when he notes that the ministers to the people adopted more monastic, i.e. "chosen" raminments to distinguish themselves among believers, those including "celibacy, distinctive 'religious' clothing, separate housing, full time church employment." He further notes that the "external actions performed by priests & monks were no longer inspiration and exhortation, but models and patterns to be followed and imitated as closely and literally as possible." In time, such emulations came to not only be shared but actually many aspects replaced the Christian triad of "prayer, fasting and almsgiving."

In this order, few really qualified as being really religious in the most sacred sense of the word. The effect of this was to establish a class of citizenship within the 'church.' It also established "a caste of explicit, professional religionists. And these became once again the 'true believers', the really holy people."

The question that immediately confronts us is not whether we have imitated this paradigm as providential necessity, which I assert we have, but in how we have handled the temptations put forth in such a situation. As Kress further notes, "'elitism' connotes not people who developed great skills & abilities, but a group or caste who claim superiority over all on the basis of one or more specialized, if not superior, skills. I, personally, would add to such 'specialized skills' as also those born into certain nations, ethnic groups, etc. This is not limited to being Korean, but could also include being male, Japanese, American, white, educated, an early member, having more children, etc.

As Kress also pointedly shares, "The danger inherent in elitism is that it will a priori by definition, exclude or marginalize certain sub-populations from holiness and salvation." We have even suggested such in our objections to the mass weddings involving non members and to our objections to the holy candy providence. While we may not refuse salvation in 'all' instances, we have questioned just 'who' is saved and the particular "position of holiness" they occupy.

In admirable balance and with a good warning to people like us, Kress also warns against an 'anti-elitism' absolute posture that also has had its expression within the Unification community. While we have not expressed an absolute posture of anti-elitism, our concerns if too literally ascribed to has some of the same dangers. As he points out, "...anti-elitism has its own inherent danger, namely, that of a universal leveling, a monolithic and monochromatic uniformity, in which everybody is forced into the same patterns and mold. The difficulty of this is twofold. First of all, people are simply not all the same, merely many different members of the same one model. Secondly, excessive anti-elitism deprives people of the variety of models and inspirations which would correspond to their own real diversity and which would inspire and challenge all these diverse people to develop their own gifts as best they can, and thus come to the holiness and salvation proper to them."

We have even established a religious test for righteousness. We juxtaposition those who are actively participating in the providence to those who cannot for whatever reason. Such examples also include the CPL graduate vs. those who have not attended. Rather than measuring our offering by what it is that we can offer, we measure our offerings against what we think we have to do to be respected within this community. To be the truly religious. In a similar vein, there has also been a prejudice against those who reflect on our religious tradition and seek to develop a theology and elaborate a doctrine accessible to all the membership. Yet, in bringing criticism against such people, ..."Were they not to so reflect and elaborate, they would have failed their proper role in religion, their proper vocation. But their fulfillment of this task does not make them better or higher than the other members, only different, and, of course, holy, but not necessarily holier."

I have often remarked how it is the dish and pot washers in a kitchen who allow the kitchen to truly function. But theirs is the lowest and least paid position. Lowest in status, last in praise.

Thus, criticism of the present interpretations, conscious and unconscious, of the theology of our church that take place are not out of line in as much as the discourses entertained are so as to enrich and clarify our minds towards encouraging more mature and better actions fulfilling God's will for us. If the motives are diatribe, or, one-up-manship or to bring accusation, a highly subjective notion at present, and judgment on others vis a vis the written word, then yes, our use of the theology is improper and should be reflected on. Yes, in this instance I use the 'should' word.

In this I feel we could be like Rahner in that "Rahner has articulated his theology so that all believers, indeed, all human beings can understand that their lives-their ordinary, everyday lives-are the means whereby God communes with them and whereby they do God's will, become holy, attain salvation. Those who are called to do more striking, unusual, extraordinary ways of becoming holy are the full-time religious professionals such as monks, ascetics, gurus, priests and ministers. But most people are called to be and become holy in and through their ordinary, and everyday lives... In these "mundane" activities they can and must find God... experience God.... and know that they do so..."

Since "the grace of holiness and salvation has always been offered to human beings, whether they reject it or accept it", there is no room for the arrogance associated "with being chosen" since all are chosen for salvation. Not all are called to discipleship, a spiritual calling, since ancestral conditions, physical opportunity, and other criteria beyond the scope of human will may preclude such a role. But all are willed to salvation.

In this respect, there may be the equivalent Unificationist existence of Rahner's "anonymous Christians." As such, though locus and opportunity may not be available to all or even chosen by all, all can & do have faith and are or will be believers.

If we understand our rightful place in the plan of God, then it seems we will best be empowered to neither allow an elitism to creep within our midst nor overreact to the acts of others which might hint they operate under such pretenses.

It seems to me that an informed membership, aware that such problems may be within our community, but committed not to rebel against such since we need the relationships to be healthy, might provide us with insights on how best to resist such elitism without establishing pogroms of some kind to expunge such tendencies.

For example, by a balanced self reflective effort we can educate ourselves for critical consciousness, not only to see when such problems emerge, but to maintain a careful hold on our own being so that we do not enter into such thinking ourselves. The best resistance to such excesses might be precisely opposed by members who, having realized the sacredness of their own being and by seeking their own holiness through the salvational efforts of TP's might actually be the antithesis of such excesses, bringing a natural criticism to such people or tendencies. While external confrontation may have it place, it might be best served when used judiciously, like spicy herbs and salt. As we reach our own holiness, we may best see when external confrontation may serve the greater purpose of restoration and when just being ourselves as holy children of God may empower us to confrontations, that while not direct in all cases might still perform the same function. In the meantime, such forums or other community discussion formats to confront the problems not only facing us but possibly inhibiting the providence need to be recognized for the service they provide us. A holy sanctuary... a place where we can encounter God and each other, in all our "glorious diversity." Here, in relative safety, we can develop a true Unification theology whose contribution to the providence and success of our TP's can be just as significant as anything written by the chosen few of our movement. I like the definition of theology being the attempt of people to give interpretation and meaning to the revelation of God through his chosen one's. And that is what we can do. And, even through our difficult moments, are doing. Here.

Simply put, how do we critique elitism if is exists? Acknowledge it and avoid it ourselves. How to avoid it? Fulfill the three blessings, becoming the fulfillment of the ideal of God. How to resolve it? Not participate in it by always seeking to advance God's will, by creating the Kingdom of Heaven, a place that elitism should never be able to either exist in nor grow in. It all seems to come down to each of us in what we do. In the here and now. Personally, in all the confrontation of such issues, though it may seem to get harsh at times, I think we are ever pushed back to our roots. Since our roots are TP's, how can we ever really go wrong in the contemplation of the difficult problems of institutional and personal restoration problems that arise to confront us?

 Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Information
Tparents Home