Explorations in Unificationism edited by Theodore T. Shimmyo and David A. Carlson
|
|
Explorations in Unificationism edited by Theodore T. Shimmyo and David A. Carlson |
This essay on Unification hermeneutics represents the reflections of the author on the subject of what Unification theology says about the nature of scripture and the proper way to interpret it. Such reflections must necessarily take into account the ways in which the Divine Principle book approaches scripture, but they are not intended to be a description of how Unification theology has interpreted scripture in previous statements of doctrine. Instead, they represent a preliminary attempt of a student in the area of biblical studies to understand how the Unificationist worldview might guide the biblical interpreter in the proper fulfillment of his or her task.
As it might be objected that such a project is an attempt to subject scripture to an outside authority, i.e., the theology of Reverend Moon, which would distort the voice of the scriptural witness itself, one must bear in mind that some theological decision concerning the proper way to read scripture is unavoidable. As Willi Marxsen has noted, the canonization of certain books authorized those books for use as scripture in the church, but no method of interpretation has been canonized.1 Even the basic Protestant principle of sola scriptura is a non-scriptural principle imposed upon scripture, and the reformation insistence on literal rather than allegorical or typological readings is similarly a principle which the biblical writers felt free to violate (e.g., Gal. 4.21-31; 1 Pet. 3.20-21).
Indeed, the need for this inquiry into Unificationist principles of interpretation arises in part from the current chaotic state of Christian hermeneutics in general. Simply put, there is no consensus within the Christian community on how to read scripture responsibly and Christianly.
Besides the persisting division between fundamentalist and critical camps, the critical camp itself has fragmented since the theological and spiritual applications of critical findings remain illusive and the hoped-for consensus among critical scholars has never materialized. A growing number of voices have suggested alternatives to the historical-critical orthodoxy, among them Hans Frei's plea to return to the narrative meaning of the texts,2 Brevard Childs' insistence on the canon as the proper context for interpretation,3 and the structuralists' suggestion that the meaning of scripture should be found in the deep structures of the text itself rather than in a reconstruction of the original meaning of the text.4
There are at least three distinct levels to the hermeneutical position of the Divine Principle which, though interrelated, must be treated separately if one is to avoid confusion about the Unification approach to scripture. One level is that of the specific interpretive methods used in the Divine Principle book in its explication of scripture. A second is the basic underlying approach to scripture which informs those specific interpretations. A third is that of the insights into the proper interpretation of scripture which might be developed from the theology itself. It is this third level which is the primary focus of this paper, though the first two levels necessarily inform the discussion. As a preliminary matter, however, some comments on the relationship between the hermeneutics this paper seeks to explicate and the specific interpretive methods used in the Divine Principle book will help to clarify the nature of the project. If the interpretation of Unification hermeneutics developed in this paper is correct, the methodologies of scriptural interpretation used in the Divine Principle book are not necessarily to be taken as exemplary for all Unificationist interpretation, and it is conceivable that a Unificationist interpreter having at his or her disposal a wider array of interpretive methodologies might find other methodologies more appropriate than those used in the book in specific instances. Judging by the response of church leaders to presentations of Unification theology which have implicitly or explicitly suggested such a flexibility in the application of specific methodologies, such a flexibility does, in fact, seem to be the church, or at least one legitimate church, position. The exact bearing of the methodologies employed in the Divine Principle book on the development of a Unification hermeneutics must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Some cases may be entirely conditioned by the historical situation of the immediate author of the book, Mr. Eu, or of Reverend Moon, reflecting the types of interpretation with which they had been familiar in Korean Christianity, and these might be quite incidental in any overall view of Unification hermeneutics. The allegorical interpretations of apocalyptic texts (Divine Principle 114-19),5 for example, seem to be relatively incidental to the theology, since it is the outcome of these interpretations rather than the nature of the interpretations which is important in the structure of the theology. The use of a certain form of typology in the understanding of narrative texts, on the other hand, seems to be much more basic to the structuring of the theology, and while the possibility of finding it incidental to a more basic level of theological meaning exists, its place in the present structuring of the theology requires careful consideration.
This does not mean, however, that even the incidental use of interpretive methodologies is entirely irrelevant to an inquiry into the more basic level of Unification hermeneutics. The presence of such interpretive strategies in the text presents us with a prima facie case that they are consistent with the implicit hermeneutical principles of the theology. While it is conceivable that a careful consideration of those principles might lead to the judgment that the methodologies are inappropriate or actually inconsistent with Unification hermeneutics, such a judgment must be arrived at with a great deal of caution, given the imprimatur which the Divine Principle book carries.
The Bible has traditionally been regarded in the church as the "word of God" and as one, if not the only norm for belief. As the term "word of God" has other technical meanings in Christian theology which may lead to confusion, this paper will use a more descriptive phrase, "a communication of God to humanity." A consideration of the nature of this communication is the center of the present hermeneutical discussion. The normative quality of scripture ultimately derives from its quality of conveying the communication of God, but the sense in which we regard it as the communication of God is in part related to the sense in which we regard it as normative. It seems clear that in a community which believes in a continuing and ongoing revelation (Divine Principle 15-16), scripture cannot be the only norm for belief, since the present revelation carries if not independent then at least interrelated weight as a norm. The historical model for such a situation is available in the teaching of Jesus and the life of the early church.
For both Jesus and the early church, the Hebrew scripture remained an extremely important norm, but both approached scripture with a great deal more flexibility than was prevalent in the mainstream Jewish communities. Jesus, for example, could abrogate the scriptural teaching on divorce (Mk. 10.2-9), and Paul could argue against Torah obedience (Gal. 5.1-4). The existing scriptures were clearly reinterpreted by the early church in such a way as to make Christ the center of Old Testament teaching. Christ himself was the primary norm through which the secondary norm of scripture was seen and interpreted. Nevertheless, scripture remained normative for the church. Continuity between Christ and God's earlier acts and teaching was considered of great importance by the orthodox church, and scripture was seen as legitimating Christian teaching.
Whether and in what sense scripture continues to function as a norm once another, superior norm has been introduced is a complex question which will not be pursued in detail in this paper. Centuries of discussions between Christians and Jews would indicate that the question might not be capable of resolution, since the readings of scripture in the two communities are so conditioned by their respective understandings of the world that the obvious continuity between Old and New Testaments perceived by generations of Christians was never perceived by Jewish interpreters. Similarly, the obvious continuity which most Unificationists perceive between the biblical witness and the Unification movement and teaching is not universally perceived in the Christian community. Whether this lack of shared perception should be credited to God's hardening of Christian hearts, to Unificationists' capacity for self-delusion, or the natural result of a paradigm shift is a question which I will leave for another discussion.
Unification theology does not consider scripture as the only possible or the only actual communication from God to humanity, but its longstanding use and the high regard in which it is held by the Christian community indicates that it has been found for many centuries to be a communication of special value. Scripture's function as a norm for belief and action indeed follows from the high regard given to it as a communication from God. In order, then, to understand scripture one must ask how it is that scripture functions as a communication from God. In Divine Principle there are at least two models for the communication from God to human beings. One is a model of direct communication:
...a man of perfection becomes one body with God in heart-and zeal, so that man and God become able to communicate with each other fully and freely. Adam and Eve, though not quite perfect, were in the stage of communicating directly with God when they fell and caused their offspring to fall into ignorance of God. (Divine Principle 120)
The second model is a model of indirect communication through God's participation in the four position foundation. A perfected individual forms "one body" with God (Divine Principle 43); "the ultimate center of the four position foundation is God" (Divine Principle 36); the relationship between God and a perfected individual is in some way analogous to the relationship between the human mind and the human body, since the individual acts out the will of God (Divine Principle 57; cf. 211). The perfected individual feels exactly what God feels and knows God's will (Divine Principle 43). While the exact nature of the participation of God in the four position foundation which these statements seek to convey is not particularly clear, nevertheless, the conviction that God does participate in some manner is frequently stated.
Because of this lack of theoretical clarity, it is helpful to consider the character of those individuals whom Unificationists regard as perfected, most notably Reverend and Mrs. Moon, in order to understand the nature of God's participation in the activity of such a person. In reflecting on those individuals, one could say that their activity does not always contain a communication of God in the sense of an oracle, "Thus sayeth the Lord...," but it does in the sense that it reflects the nature of God. Thus when a perfected individual goes fishing, God does not participate in that fishing in the sense of showing that individual where the fish are, but the individual's attitude in fishing reflects something of the nature of God, and God in some way shares in the experience of challenging nature. To take an example which more closely approaches some aspects of the scriptural texts, one might say that when a perfected individual gives advice to another individual or group, in most cases he does not receive that advice directly as an oracle from God but through the oneness of the individual with God, God guides the shaping of that advice, and through the unity of that individual's heart with that of God, the advice reflects and shares in the intention of God.
In the case of unperfected persons whose heart and purpose is aligned with the will of God, it seems that God still participates in their action, though not to the same extent (Divine Principle 55). That is, since growth to perfection is a gradual process, and there is no sudden and radical transformation of the individual at some moment which can be identified as the moment of perfection, the participation of God in the life and activity of an individual appears to slowly increase in depth as a person grows spiritually. Before perfection, however, the individual's connection with God is not so strong that he or she cannot decide to act contrary to the will of God (Divine Principle 55). If, in fact, the individual does so decide, God's participation in the individual's activity would cease until it is realigned with the will of God. Thus even though the biblical writers were not persons of perfected individuality, some participation of God in their activity of writing similar to that in the four position foundation is possible. Throughout this paper the term "four position foundation" will generally refer to such an unperfected approximation of the true four position foundation.
There are several necessary conditions for a four position foundation to exist in a human relationship. First of all, the perfected four position foundation implies the perfection of the individuals who form it (Divine Principle 43-44). That means not only that their heart and purpose are aligned with God and that they have substantiated the character which God has given to them but also that their external action expresses that character (Divine Principle 43). In the case of the unperfected relationships which we are considering here, the heart, character, and action simply approximate that of a perfected individual. Secondly, there must be a certain commonality in the inner nature of the two parties (Divine Principle 37-38). Thirdly, the four position foundation implies an authentic relationality between the parties. One aspect of authentic relationality is a shared heart and purpose (aligned with God's) in undertaking the relationship, so that the parties do not have conflicting intentions in the relationship (UT 50).6 The relational activity must also be at an authentic level, in touch with the internal being of the actor and directed at the internal being of the recipient. Finally, it must be remembered that the four position foundation always involves concrete entities rather than abstracts. One or both of the parties may be a large collective entity, such as the people of Israel or all the inhabitants of the world in the year 1985, but even then the relationship with the collective can be resolved into the relationships with the individuals comprising it. The authenticity of the relational activity is dependent on its being directed at the actual character of those individuals.
Since God desires to be relationally connected to the world and to participate in the activity of the world and, indeed, created the world for that very purpose according to Unification theology (Divine Principle 42), we can presume that, by and large, God will participate in the world through the four position foundation when the conditions for his participation, as outlined above, do exist. God, of course, is a free agent, but one can presume that his purposes are consistent and that he acts consistently in accordance with those purposes. In the course of restoration, however, God's ultimate purpose is expressed through his more immediate purpose of facilitating the process of restoration through indemnity, and God, in order to achieve that goal, would not necessarily always participate in such a possible four position foundation, and thus his participation, even though it would in any case be experienced as grace in the sense of being a free gift of God is presently experienced as grace in the sense that it does not necessarily match the merit of the human participants in the relationship in establishing the conditions for his participation.
These two models for the communication from God to humanity can be applied rather directly to the formation of the biblical writings. Some prophetic books contain words which claim to be the words of God, a direct communication from God to the prophet which the prophet is passing on to the people on behalf of God. If these words have been accurately preserved, they exemplify communication according to the first model. Most of the material in the Bible, on the other hand, does not itself purport to be words of God but rather consists of narratives, letters, poems, and other material of purely human composition. If, in the original situation in which these materials were composed, they did indeed function as a communication from God, then they are communication of the second type, in which God participates through the four position foundation in the activity of the authors. The production of scripture, of course, is not a process which involves the authors of scripture alone. The books of scripture, and the traditions which lie behind them, were intended as communication and thus are one aspect of a relationship between the authors of scripture and the audience which they intended their writings to address. In the Unificationist terminology of the four position foundation, the books of scripture, when originally composed, were part of the give and take action between their authors and the intended audience. One presumes that the authors' purposes are aligned with God, and thus there is at least an intended four position foundation including the author and his or her audience implied in the composition of scripture. Whether there exists an actual four position foundation depends upon whether or not the audience shared the relational intentions of the authors and actually received the communication. At least in the case of some of the prophetic utterances, the intended audience appears not to have accepted the communication and completed the relationship. In such a case, the model must be modified as a potential rather than an actualized communication.
If scripture is indeed the communication of God, we can presume that God did participate in the creation of scripture and also that the conditions of true relationality that are necessary for the four position foundation were at least approximated on the side of the author if not on the side of the original audience. This suggests that the concrete specificity of the situation addressed by the author is an important aspect of the original creation of scriptural writings, since the authenticity of the communication depends on the authors addressing the inner reality of the actual audience. W e should not be surprised, then, if scripture is in some part historically conditioned. This is in fact the position taken by the Divine Principle book. In explaining why a new expression of truth must appear for modern times, it states, "Naturally, the quality of teaching and the method and extent of giving the truth must vary according to each age, for the truth is given to people of different ages, who are at different spiritual and intellectual levels" (Divine Principle 9). It can be expected that the incidental conditions of the situations addressed by the scriptural writings would play as great a role in their formation as the level of the original audiences' spiritual evolution. "Scriptures of different religions varied according to the mission of the religion, the people who received it, and the age in which it came" (Divine Principle 9-10). The nature of the historical conditioning varies considerably in various parts of scripture. In some parts the author consciously addresses a specific historical situation, while in other parts the author appears to be presenting timeless truths to the best of his or her ability, but as the nature of human existence is historical specificity, timeless truth can only be stated in an historically conditioned mode. Nevertheless, the Christian church has recognized scripture as the communication of God even outside of the historical situation originally addressed. In canonizing scripture, the church recognized these writings as having validity independent of their original use as a communication between the author and his or her original audience. In this situation, the nature of the writings as communication has changed radically from the original situation. Scriptural texts were not consciously shaped to address people of later generations in the same way as they were to address those immediately addressed.
How, then, does God communicate with us today through the scriptural text? As outlined above, we have two models available to us for the communication of God to a human being, a model of direct communication and a model of indirect communication through the four position foundation. By definition the model of direct communication is not applicable if the communication is mediated through scripture, though a model of direct communication triggered by scripture is certainly possible. That is, the reading of scripture might prepare one's mind and heart to receive a direct communication from God, but in that case it is no longer accurate to say that scripture or the reading of scripture is itself God's communication.
According to the indirect model, God participates in and in some way directs the relational activity within the four position foundation. Thus if the reader forms a four position foundation with scripture, God can participate in his or her reading of scripture in such a way as to communicate to him or her in that reading. In traditional terms, we say in such a case that the Holy Spirit illuminates the reading of scripture. The model of the four position foundation requires that the nature of both parties in the relationship be basically aligned with the heart and purpose of God. Thus the application of the model to the reading of scripture requires that the heart and purpose of God be somehow implicit in or behind or in front of the scriptural text, or perhaps one might say that the words of the scriptural texts are such as to tend to imply the heart and purpose of God. The judgment of the church in canonizing the scriptural texts might be described as a recognition of the possibility of reading the texts in such a manner as to reveal in a relatively clear form the heart and purpose of God and also of the quality of the texts to tend to produce that reading. That the texts can be read so as to obscure the heart and purpose of God was not denied by the church and is, in fact, the position of the texts themselves (John 5.39-40; 2 Pet. 3.16), and that position suggests that the texts themselves are not the communication of God but the vehicle for God's communication in the individual's reading of them.
If the four position foundation is taken as the primary model for the communication of God to a human being through scripture, we need to inquire whether the model gives any guidelines for the reading of scripture. How can we read scripture so that God speaks to us in that reading?
It should be remembered that God's participation in our reading of scripture is a matter of grace, and we cannot do anything to insure that it will happen, but the model of the four position foundation does suggest that there are some things which make that participation more likely. Of central importance is one's attitude in reading scripture. For the four position foundation to be formed, it is essential that the reader's purpose in reading be aligned with God's purpose. God's purposes for our reading of scripture may not be the same in all situations and might change radically from one situation to another. For example, from a Christian perspective, it might be argued that, after the advent of Jesus, God intended that the way in which the Old Testament is read should change so that the Old Testament now be read so as to illuminate the meaning of Christ. If we understand scripture as the principal communication of God to humanity, the reading of scripture must be seen as a circular process, since we have to understand God's purpose through the reading of scripture before we can read scripture correctly so as to understand God's purpose. Traditionally, the initial orientation to scripture to enable a proper reading was received through the church, but we can expect to experience a gradual deepening of our reading of scripture as we discover through it a deeper understanding of the purpose of God.
The model of the four position foundation suggests that the process of God's speaking to us in scripture is facilitated by an attitude of expectation of hearing the word of God, both because, presumably, God's purpose in our reading of scripture is at least sometimes to allow him to speak to us, and because relational activity is more likely to achieve a particular effect if it is the intention of the participants, at least at an unconscious level, to achieve that effect.
The second thing which the model of the four position foundation suggests about the proper way of reading scripture so as to enable God to speak in that reading is the necessity of authentic relationality in the reading. That is, the reader has to engage in the reading process in such a way that the questions and concerns which inform his or her reading proceed from the deepest level of his or her being, and the reader seriously attempts to hear the meaning of scripture rather than imposing meaning on scripture. In short, the model suggests one should approach the reading of the scripture with approximately the same attitude with which one approaches a deep and sincere relationship with another person, and one can expect the reading of scripture to require just as much effort as is required by deep human relationships. The model does not suggest that it is necessary to read scripture uncritically. Since we have located God's activity in the reading process itself, it is not necessary for the reader to accept everything which is stated in scripture. In fact, since authentic involvement with the ideas of scripture means that one does not accept or simply gloss over those things which one does not understand or which seem untrue, too uncritical a reading would in all likelihood reduce the chances of hearing the communication of God in scripture. On the other hand, the sort of critical stance which simply subjects scripture to judgment according to the reader's preconceptions does not allow for authentic relationality and is thus rejected by the model.
Closely related to the authenticity of the relationship is its historically concrete quality. That is, the reader in his or her historically specific situation, brings to the text a great deal of baggage, including past interpretations of the text and accepted methods of interpretation, as well as all the general attitudes and concepts which comprise his or her world-view. If the canonization of scripture means that the texts are understood as bearing the communication of God in any historical context, then one cannot insist that the communication of God through scripture is only available to one using a specific historically conditioned method of interpretation. That is, God can speak to a person in medieval Europe using allegorical and typological methods of interpretation as well as to a twentieth century reader using an historical-critical method and vice versa. That does not mean, however, that any interpreter's relationship to his or her own historical situation will lead the interpreter to regard certain methods as legitimate and certain others as illegitimate, and if the interpreter is to read authentically, he or she has to use what he or she regards as a legitimate method, and the judgment as to the legitimacy of a method is informed by many aspects of one's worldview which are independent of scripture. Thus an interpreter can deny legitimacy to certain methods of reading scripture, but he cannot deny that other interpreters using those methods might still hear the communication of God in scripture.
While this model allows a great deal of flexibility in the interpretation of scripture, it does not make that interpretation into a purely subjective enterprise in which the interpreter has total freedom. The interpreter is obliged by the model to use a method of interpretation which he or she regards as legitimate, and any person authentically in relation with his or her world cannot arbitrarily choose the criteria of legitimacy. More importantly, no text is infinitely plastic in regard to the meanings which can be attributed to it, and the attempt to understand the true meaning of the text which is required by authentic relationality is likely to tend toward meanings actually suggested by the text. God's communication might be present in a variety of different interpretations made by interpreters in different concrete situations, but all those different interpretations must in some way be informed by the actuality of the text.
If the model for scriptural interpretation presented in this paper, which clearly allows for a variety of readings of scripture, is truly the Unificationist position, how are we to understand the repeated claims of the Divine Principle book to present the true interpretation of scripture (e.g., D P 15, 114, 201)? The Divine Principle understands there to be certain eternal, unchanging truths (Divine Principle 9), such as the nature of God and creation and the principles by which God has been working to achieve the restoration of the world. These are the principles which embody the Divine Principle. These same principles are at least implied in scripture. The analogy of scripture being a "textbook of the truth" (Divine Principle 9) suggests that the purpose of scripture is to teach these principles to humankind. If, indeed, this is God's purpose for establishing the scriptural canon, then the reader who discovers those principles in scripture would be the one most in tune with the heart and purpose of God, and thus his or her reading would be the most adequate. The way in which the model would judge between the depth and adequacy of various readings in general would be on the basis of the closeness of the approximation of a reading to the actual heart and purpose of God.
It is likely that in addition to having an overarching, cosmic purpose for the establishment of scripture, God might have a series of lesser, individual purposes for individual readers of scripture, so that a reading which seeks after something less than a full understanding of the nature and activity of God would still be perfectly legitimate, though not the "true" meaning in a more cosmic sense.
There are also true and untrue readings in the sense that readings may or may not reflect the true nature of reality. The interpretation of scripture in the Divine Principle claims to be true also in this sense, that it most closely portrays the nature of reality. In this sense, however, the truth of the interpretation is based on an external criterion, the nature of reality, rather than on the text itself and such text-related criteria as the originally intended meaning of the text or the syntactical meaning of the phonemes.
In the light of the qualified assent which this model gives to a variety of legitimate individual readings of scripture, are there any practical guidelines which can be espoused for a Unificationist scriptural interpretation? Does a Unificationist interpreter have any recourse other than to regard the Divine Principle as a regulafidei by which to distinguish between adequate and inadequate interpretations without having any guide as to how those interpretations might be generated? In reflecting on the nature of the scriptural interpretations contained in the Divine Principle book, I have come to the conviction that one of the major factors which distinguish the Unificationist interpretations of scripture is the nature of the underlying question which is being addressed to scripture. While other interpretations of scripture cluster around basic questions such as "What must I do to be saved?" or "How is it possible to be justified in the sight of God?" or "What is the nature of God and his dealings with the world?" Reverend Moon's approach to scripture is motivated by the underlying question, "What is my responsibility in the restoration of the world and what is the path which I must follow to accomplish it?" Other questions, such as the nature of God and the nature of God's activity in history, are subordinated to that larger question.
According to Unificationist tradition, Jesus' commissioning of Reverend Moon took place before he developed the Principle and the interpretations of scripture which were a part of its development. Thus the existential motivating force for his interpretation of scripture was his desire to fulfill that commission.
If, indeed, the quality of one's interpretation of scripture is related to the quality of one's own heart and the quality of the purpose with which one approaches scripture, then by adopting the same question as the background to one's own interpretation of scripture, the likelihood for God's participation in one's reading of scripture should be increased. The question of methodology remains open and may be determined by the nature of the specific questions which are being pursued. For example, in considering the sub-question of the nature of Jesus' mission, historical methodologies might have an important input into our understanding, while for other sub-questions, such as the purpose of God's creating the world, they may not be as relevant.
The salient points of the present model for the understanding of scripture are (1) the authority of scripture derives from the church's recognition that God communicates to humans through the reading of the text and the special character of the texts in enabling that communication; (2) the communication of God is located in the act of reading rather than in the texts themselves; (3) the four position foundation is the principal model for understanding how God can communicate in the reading of the texts; (4) the primary determinants of the reader's ability to receive the communication of God in the reading of the text, besides the grace of God, are the reader's level of spiritual development and the attitude which he or she brings to the text; and (5) the specific methodology by which the reader reads the text is historically conditioned and does not determine his or her ability to receive the communication of God through the text.
Any model for Unification hermeneutics must be compatible with the Divine Principle's insistence on God's working through the Christian church in the history of restoration as well as through the other legitimate religions of the world. The model's allowance for broad variation in methodology and stress on the historically specific nature of each communication of God is consistent with that aspect of Unification belief. It also allows God to speak through scripture to members of non-western cultures in ways which specifically relate to those cultures. While it embraces pluralism in scriptural readings, however, the model still reminds us that not all scriptural interpretations are created equal but some come closer to conveying the heart and purpose of God and thus come closer to capturing the communication of God to humanity which is possible in the reading of scripture.
1. Willi Marxsen, The New Testament as the Church's Book, tr. by James E. Mignard (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 8-9.
2. Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale University, 1974).
3. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 99-107.
4. E.g., Daniel Patte, What is Structural Exegesis? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976).
5. References signified by Divine Principle in the text refer to Divine Principle (New York: Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1973).
6. References signified by UT in the text refer to Unification Thought (New York: Unification Thought Institute, 1973).