It was Dr. Richard Rubenstein, if my memory serves me well, whom I heard comment once that religions must emerge from pre-modern cultures. I would like to elaborate on that insight, which I believe to be a true one.

Our society, to put it most simply, does not support the notion that one might die for an invisible and unreasonable power. One might die for his country, as a soldier in a war. One might die for his religion, even, as a martyr under a foreign and oppressive regime. But it is simply not plausible to die for an invisible reality which sends you against what the world believes reasonable. Unfortunately, God is invisible and often unreasonable.

In our culture, it is reasonable to be a Christian missionary, even at great sacrifice. But it is not reasonable to start a new religion. New religions never make sense to the world in which they emerge. This is because the new religion is proposing new principles and new implications of traditional principles. New religions proclaim new starting points. Since any religion make sense only on its own terms, a new religion has a particularly difficult time.

This is why the more successful a society is, the more resistant it is to new religions. Further, it is why a successful society cannot be the seed ground out of which a new religion will emerge.

No Success Like Failure"

Scholars comment that the Divine Principle view is that history is a history of unremitting failure. Looking at the world, how can it be otherwise?

By the time this is in your hands, the march will be over. We will know if a million men showed up, what happened, and the fallout, and many comments will have been made. Taking that risk, I cast my vote in favor of the march.

I do so not because of what I read in the New York Times. The Times does not even provide one the basis to form an opinion about the march. It had extensive coverage to the effect that many are planning to participate, and there are a variety of opinions about the march. What the Times fails to report is what the march is for!

However, I read some Nation of Islam literature on the march. The themes which the march is to represent are commitment to family, marital responsibility, the individual virtues of which males are especially called to manifest, and social responsibility, centered on God. These themes enliven my heart. The "reconciliation and atonement" aspect, as I understand it, means that the march's sponsors and participants are stating that they have failed to fulfill these ideals (and who among us has not?), and that they are determining in solidarity to uphold them and accomplish them.

Critics of the march focus mainly upon its exclusivism: only men (say some women); only blacks (say some other blacks; it is not PC for whites to say so); and, of course, the leadership of Minister Farrakhan, well-publicized for making racial-superiority and anti- semitic statements. Is Farrakhan molding black solidarity by inciting hatred of others as its foundation? I do not think so.

Distinction from others always plays a role in forming a group identity. This takes benign form in the normal distinction of families, companies, schools, and so forth. It takes a malicious form when distinction is based upon a good-evil criterion: those who do not belong to my church (synagogue, mosque, race, nation) are bound for hell, are non-human, etc. The judgment between the benign and malicious, in this case, is whether the group-identification is based upon that group living sacrificially for the sake of other groups.

Thus, I am proud to identify with Reverend Moon and the Unification Church as a "group," because I can see that this man and his church are authentically and consistently working sacrificially for the sake of others: other churches, the nation, the world, and ultimately for God.

I perceive that the Million Man March is at its basis an effort to mobilize the conscience and energies of black men to live for the sake of others: for their wives and families, for their communities and this nation, and ultimately for God. In fact, the literature connected with this march makes some of the clearest statements of these ideals that I have seen coming out of anywhere outside the Unificationist community.

So, I am for the march, and I wish, for today, I were black enough to take part in it.

At worst, men and women love each other for physical pleasure. The highest level in this world is when men and women love each other for spiritual pleasure. Who is loving each other for the sake of God?

The New Testament is clear in its teaching that there is enmity between God and the world. It teaches that one is either on the side of God or on the side of the world; there is no middle ground.

Then, on which side stands the institution of marriage? In the view of Jesus, one is rewarded for separating from wife and family for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Paul follows his teacher: one who is married no longer has concern for the things of God. Marriage definitely stands on the side of the world, not of God, in the New Testament.

Even in the context of the availability and accomplishment of Christian salvation, the world is evil, and the more one separates oneself from the world, the better one's chances to live a good life. And marriage it classified as one component of the ways of the world, not one of the paths to God.

Reverend and Mrs. Moon are proclaiming that, on the foundation of the New Testament, the Completed Testament is at hand. The purpose of the Blessing of marriage given by Reverend and Mrs. Moon is to bring marriage back completely into the realm of God. By bringing marriage into the realm of God, we also are bringing the entire world back to God.

The kingdom of heaven is not a church; it is a family.

Cellular phones are but the newest instrument enabling us to tune into the invisible world. We are tuning into the invisible world, in the sense that we are turning invisible energy (various types of radiation) into visible phenomena (sound, light). The information which is manifested is stored, or encoded, in the invisible waves of

energy. With the proper instrument (dish, phone, radio) we transform

that energy into phenomena accessible to our five physical senses.

Let's take it a step further and look at the brain as such an instrument. It is picking up invisible energy which is encoded with information. This information is transformed into thoughts (which comprise visual images, music, words, intuitions, emotions, and so forth) in our brains. With the aid of another transformer, known as the body, these thoughts can manifest in the physical realm (sounds, actions), of a grosser vibration.

Just a thought.

We do evil for the sake of love. Jean Valjean, in Les Miserables, robbed a bakery for the sake of love. Susan Smith killed her children for the sake of love. One act we find admirable, the other despicable. But is not Susan Smith an image of our nation, in which divorce, child abuse, throwaway children, child prostitution and pornography, man-boy love associations, and dumbing-down education are part of the social fabric? Ms. Smith was rather forceful about it, but when one views the media fare assaulting our children's senses on a day in, day out basis, one can easily draw the conclusion that in a moral sense, we are killing our children.

God is love, so what does He do with evil committed for the sake of love? Newsweek pointed out this week that Americans support capital punishment but do not execute many people. Like God, the more we get to know the criminal, the more we feel pity and sympathy. In fact, the more we get to know them, the more we see they are the same as us.

Where is the root of the evil? Divine Principle teaches that it is in the intimate relations of man and woman; the relations we normally place under the category of love.

It was my college friend Randy Reedy back in 1969 or `70 who predicted that the next generational trend would be to dress in black, have very short hair, and exalt death and suicide. He reasoned that every generation rebels against its parents, and the parents who grew up in the `60s were promoting "life" (flowers, love, peace, freedom, ideals). So the next generation, naturally, would promote the opposite.

Soon, in the alphabet of generations, we will be out of letters. From "life" to "death" to . . . "reality", perhaps?

What goes around . . .

In Buddhism it is the law of Karma. On the street, it's "what goes around, comes around." According to the blues singers, "you gotta pay your dues." This is inexorable. What you give out, comes back, either to you or to your descendants. What you have is mostly what your ancestors bequeathed you. What you do with it is up to you.

Christian evangelists speak of the "conviction of sin." That term had little impact upon me until I realized that it really means: "feeling that one deserves punishment." The "grace of salvation," on the other hand, really means that "the punishment that I am receiving has efficacy to save one thousand, one million people."

Based upon the realization that one deserves punishment, and that one's punishment will save others, one can live through the most miserable of circumstances and find meaning and hope. Reverend Moon said that we should consider others' mistakes as our own, and take responsibility for others' failures. He said that the person who does this will not decline.

This, I believe, is the theme underlying the popular movie, "Forrest Gump." Mr. Gump's gift was the ability to accept everything which came his way as destiny. He had no agenda of his own, in other words. If someone told him to do something; he obeyed. If someone asked him a favor, he committed his life to fulfilling it. In fact he was taking responsibility for others' failures. He promised his army buddy, for example, that he would take up shrimping, using the man's boat. The buddy died, but Mr. Gump kept the promise. His late friend's boat was a wreck, but Mr. Gump took responsibility for it, without a second thought. Thus he became a wealthy man.

Is Gump a fool, as he appears to be at first glance? Or is he a Christ-like figure, a St. Francis? I believe, in the final analysis, he is a fool, because he does not know what he is doing. He is making no moral decisions; he is not capable of them. When the pressure builds, he (literally) runs from it.

But Gump is a beautiful fool, of which the world is not worthy.

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