Unification Theology In Comparative Perspectives - Edited by Anthony J. Guerra - 1988
|
|
Unification Theology In Comparative Perspectives - Edited by Anthony J. Guerra - 1988 |
The development of the Unification Church has taken place under different social and religious contextual influences.1 Any interpretation of the Unification movement which neglects these various influences is prone to over systematization or one-sidedness. Being mindful of the impossibility of taking all these difficulties into account, I see, paradoxically, in the plurality of perspectives one key to an understanding of Unificationism.
The method of this paper is defined by the theological ethical task and, since I am a student of the history of Christian ethics, it is developed mainly from within that tradition. I must thus acknowledge my limitations in not being able to adequately account for and assess the relationship of the Unification teachings to other traditions.
In the first part of this paper I am concerned with hermeneutical, structural and rudimentary considerations of Unification theology and ethics, especially in light of the Christian tradition. The questions I seek to address regard the Unification approach to ethics, the theological structure and the undergirding ethical orientations. The main aim of this part is the development of an interpretive theological framework.
In the second part, following the established interpretative framework, I am attempting to describe and analyze Unification theological ethics proper, within its basically dual normative framework of creation and restoration and in the order of its metaphysical, anthropological, and ethical principles.
Finally, in the last part of this paper, I am turning from the descriptive to the critical and advocative task in a discussion of some of the weaknesses of Unification ethics and of the possible routes that might be taken in order to attend to them. Questions regarding the family ideal, ethical consequences of the Unification understanding of salvation, and the dualism of ends and means and church and society take the center stage. In a final conclusion I try to point both to the resources for flexibility, development, and critical potential within the Unification teachings and to the need for Unificationism to be open and to employ modern analytical methods in order to meet the internal and external challenges.
That ethics is of some importance in Unificationism is expressed through its explicit treatment in some of the original sources of the Unification teachings, Unification Thought2 and Unification Theology and Christian Thought.3 Some of the books on Unification theology and lifestyle ate based on conferences of scholars with members of the Unification Church. They include discussions, inside views and testimonies that closely relate to ethics, thus documenting the moral reflection of Unification Church members on a practical level. The discussions illustrate that members in their moral deliberations frequently transcend the strictly rational (philosophical) ethical level by turning ethical discussions into theological deliberations. The ethical question, "What shall we do?" is shifted to the theological and philosophical formulation of the question, "What is the meaning of human activity, life and being?" The reference is not to specific ethical norms but to spiritual, theological and philosophical meanings within the theological frame of the Unification teachings. For example, the fundraising practices of the movement are explained by a theology of fundraising and those of evangelization by a theology of witnessing.4
The same method, or rather the lack of attention to the philosophical ethical dimension, may be detected in the more systematic treatments of ethics in the literature of the Unification Church. A German scholar finds: "It is surprising when considering the rather high level of theological rationalization in the Unification Church that the discussion of theories of ethics is rather underdeveloped."5 Unificationism shares this lack of strictly ethical reflection with other young movements in the history of Christianity. Since its sphere of life is still so self-evident, it sees no need for rational grounding of independent ethics.6
The attempt toward interpreting all action, not only religious action, in a religious way, i.e., the connecting of all life and even of day-to-day occurrences with God, brings to mind the Pietism of Spenet and the Puritanism of England and America. More basically, though, it is the result of the general orientation of the Reformation theology, which on the one hand, especially with Luther, turned the ethical question into a theological one, of, on the other hand, especially with Calvin, put everything under the sovereignty of God.7 For example, Luther shifted the moral problem of sins to the theological problem of original sin and interpreted the mundane vocations as callings, extending the priesthood to all believers. Accordingly, the Roman Catholic division between a natural and a Christian ethics was abolished in Protestantism and ethics was henceforth treated within the theological frame.8
Today, the formulation of the ethical question is becoming radicalized again by its pushing towards its toots. The German theologian Trutz Rendtorff remarks: "The special sign of ethical discourse today is that ethical questions are no longer limited to questions about the individual's conduct to his/her context of life but are concerned with the conditions of the context of life itself. "9 The nomenclature and method of Unification lifestyle theologies fit well into the modem theological-ethical chorus: theology of sexuality, political theology, ecological theology, etc.
The transcending of the strictly philosophical ethical mode of reasoning in Unificationism expresses its concern for addressing its new understanding of reality and in no way means that Divine Principle,10 the primary source on Unification teaching, is not interested in the ethical question. It only emphasizes that the answer may not be tightly understood without the prior understanding of the new theological context. More specifically, it is its interest in change and transformation which seemingly puts the strictly ethical question in second place. In this sense, modem ethics and Unificationism share the experience of historical and social change. The concern is with the transformation of values and presumptions which are at the heart of any Christian ethics. From the point of view of Unification ethics, then, Divine Principle is an ethical theology which creates a relational framework for the discussion of ethical questions.
The good news of the Unification Church consists in the exhortation to build the Kingdom of God since the path to its realization has now been revealed.11 This weight on eschatology brings Unification theology into close proximity with the Kingdom of God theology of the left-wing Reformation12 and with the new eschatologically oriented theology,13 notwithstanding their dissimilarities. This eschatological vision probably contributes most to Unificationism's activism, the element characterizing the Unification Church in the public's eye. Similarly, the more recent theology focuses on the eschatological vision of the Kingdom of God with the hope that it may bestow upon Christian hearts new zeal to move present society a bit closer toward the end.14 Although both focus on this-worldly activity, their eschatological vision and theological structure differ markedly in kind. While the Theology of Hope assumes a radical distinction between creation and the eschaton,15 Unification theology stresses their continuity through the concept of restoration.
Like Irenaeus, Unificationism sees the eschaton as the fulfillment of the original ideal of creation.16 Accordingly, the basic structure of Unification theology is built around the doctrines of creation, the fall and restoration. In short, the story of Unification theology runs like this: The principle of creation describes God's original ideal, plan, purpose or will, that is the establishment of his Kingdom on earth with the human family as its center. But this original intention was frustrated by Satan and for the ancestors, causing the fall. Nevertheless, this did not change God's ultimate ideal to set up his/her Kingdom of earth. It did change the path of its realization, in terms of the necessary time and means. This path is described through the principle of restoration and is carried out in human history which is the story of God's and humanity's activity of restoring God's Kingdom on earth. In Divine Principle there is an elaborate account of history which links the fall with the eschaton. It describes the norm of restoration through its interpretation of the Genesis account, the history of Israel in the Old Testament, the mission of Jesus in the New Testament, and the events of the history of Christianity in relation to world history up until today.
The purpose of creation furnishes the common theme and continuity of Unification theology, which causes its eschatology to be intimately linked to the doctrine of creation. History is at the same time the radical break (fall) from and the path (restoration) to God and his/her ideal (Kingdom of God on earth and in heaven). Hence, also History in its purpose is related to the doctrine of creation. For example, Unificationism evaluates the ministry of Jesus from the point of view of whether it fulfilled the purpose of crearion.17
We may safely conclude that Unification theology knows three fundamental reference points: creation (the beginning), the fall and history (the restorative struggle), and the eschaton (the fulfillment). Since the eschaton will be the fulfillment of creation, their norms will show the basic continuity of promise, beginning and fulfillment. The difference between the ethical norm of creation and the eschaton will only be one in terms of development -- not a radical one, since that would destroy the oneness of God's purpose. The only other substantially differing material norm is the principle of restoration, an interim norm. But even the purpose of this norm is directed towards restoration and fulfillment. We are thus left with essentially two, but not unrelated, material norms, the ethical norm prescribed by creation and eschaton, and the one prescribed by restoration.
The division of ethics into two norms, if not the rule, is at least very common in the history of Christian ethics: the Roman Catholic conception of the supernatural or Christian virtues on the basis of Natural Law shared with the non-Christians, the usual Protestant separation of ethics into the individual ethics of the Gospel (justification by faith) and the social ethics of the Law (the natural orders and the Ten Commandments), and the Anabaptist antithesis between the ethics of the Christian community and of culture.18 In my view, the ethics of the Calvinist tradition approaches most closely, both in structure and transformational thrust, the ethics of Unificationism. It also avoids the stark division between individual and society. As will be seen, however, Unificationism shares also much with both the Catholic and Lutheran position.
As has already been stated at the outset, Unification theology has been largely misunderstood because of a misreading of its different hermeneutical presuppositions. For example, what might seem to be utterly wrong from the perspective of a theologian of Hope, namely, Unification's emphasis on the prefix "re" and, consequently, its stress on the doctrine of creation, boils down to a misapprehension of Unificationism's conception of creation. As a result of the Barthian legacy, much of theology after World War II has covertly been directed against Liberal theology's easy identification of the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world and the creational emphasis of a particular Lutheran theology which built much of its ethics around the orders of creation. Since the Barthian battle against these theologies has ended in a Christonomism and proven to be inadequate in the realm of ethics,19 a shift to the eschatological dimension was thought to provide an answer. Any theology built on creation is then still considered as belonging to the same sort as that of the Lutheranism of the 1920s and '30s.20 It is my view, though, as will have to be pointed out in a moment, that Unification theology does not fall into the same category just by virtue of being creational.
While Lutheranism has always stressed a dualism or dialectic between law (including creation) and Gospel, Calvinism assumed a closet unity between the two consisting of the third use of the law, that is, the Ten Commandments.21 Similarly, there is a unitary approach in Unification theology, which is, however, conceived between the two quite different concepts of creation and restoration. More precisely, Unification theology uses a heilsgeschichtliche approach in its understanding of history coupled with a progressive view of revelation.22 Law (if creation is included) and Gospel are events in that Heilsgeschichte whose conceptions become reevaluated as new revelation and insights are introduced in history. Thus, the Unification view of creation is continuously re-evaluated in light of Heilsgeschichte and thus not, as might be assumed by some Christian theologians, fixed by a certain Old Testament interpretation or as reinterpreted by the Gospel. While it is true that historical events are judged in light of the purpose of creation in Unification theology, as mentioned previously, they are at the same time theological hermeneutical presuppositions of the doctrine of creation. The link between the two doctrines of creation and restoration is quite intimate and resembles that of a hermeneutical circle that is extended in time. The resultant Unification view of creation may, thus, be described as a dynamic process.
Thus, the Unification idea of creation may not be judged at faith value, i.e., from some other theological reference point, but requires an understanding of its own underlying theological and hermeneutical presuppositions which are at the heart of Unificationism's new interpretation of the Bible.23
The upshot of this new interpretation, as radical it may be, is not so radical on the ethical level. The extent of the social relevance of the Christian revelation, especially Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, has always been a hotly debated question. The specifically Christian message has largely been limited to the private sphere, or was modified under the influence of the Old Testament perspective of law, as in the case of Calvin. In this century, for example, Reinhold Niebuhr chided the attempts at Christianizing society by the Social Gospel movement and held that Jesus' idea of love is an impossible possibility.24 Thus, the relative containment of Jesus' place in society has been the majority view in Christianity, especially of the large European denominations. It is my opinion that the ideal of Jesus is a spiritual one which operates in the lives of individuals as spiritual salvation (justification).25 Without doubt, its social influence has been felt throughout history and its ethical ideal or sacrifice has given inspiration to individuals and groups. Yet, the Sermon on the Mount is not a blue print for society. With Niebuht, Unificationism may affirm that the Kingdom of Jesus is one that stands at the end of history; it remains an impossible possibility.
It is important to recognize that when Unification theology talks about the Kingdom of God on earth it does not talk about the realization of Jesus' Kingdom of God on earth (the impossible possibility of selfless love on the social level); it talks about a different concept for society at large which I like to call "the possible ideal." The use of the notion of the Kingdom of God on earth refers to that possible ideal, the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven may refer to Jesus' Kingdom of the spiritual Kingdom -- though, these concepts in Divine Principle may be used rather inconsistently and without the conceptual clarity called for here. It is the purpose of the first section of the second part of this paper to delineate Unification's possible ideal, the Kingdom of God on earth. I suggest for the sake of conceptual clarity to call that ideal a "possible ideal," or even better, an "earthly ideal" in order to avoid the Utopian notions for which Unification theology, in this context, has sometimes been unjustly accused.
It has become obvious that Unificationism has not as much in common with Anabaptism as some might have assumed, since it does not uphold a biblical ethicism. In at least one important aspect, though, it shares their feeling of eschatological urgency, hope and ethical thrust. It is exactly this heart which the newest Kingdom of God Theology seeks to capture, but which its apocalyptic "primitive Christian eschatology" prevents: "consequently, the great emphasis placed on eschatology by present-day theologians seems to us to be likewise abstract and theoretical -- mere 'academic eschatology,' like the earlier academic socialism."26
Unification teaching always considers humanity in its cosmological context -- a purposive universe governed by metaphysical principles. These principles are general and universal, applicable to all that exists, even to God. It may even be said that evil depends on their existence, for instance, on the principle of Give and Take.27
The most basic commonality shared by the universe is polarity and duality which is expressed in two ways: the relativity of internal character and external form (inner and outer aspects of things) and the relativity of masculinity and femininity (also called positivity and negativity).28 "These polarities show that every created thing manifests the 'image and likeness' of God, its creator."29 It is important to notice that these polarities are not to be understood dualistically, that is, antithetically. They are similar to the Oriental concepts of Yin and Yang and thus connote relative difference and similarity, interdependence and complementarity, and are only definable in relationship to one another as, for instance, subject and object, vertical and horizontal.30 The potential for relationships lies in the existence of such dual characteristics, and since every relationship is maintained by the give and take of its parts, it is called "give and take action."31 Existence is thus the result of polarity and relationship of differentiation and unification (the image of a periodic wave may best describe the dynamics involved). This fundamental metaphysical principle is the basis for the relational thinking within Unification theology, the web of its fabric.
The two other metaphysical principles are derivatives or developments of the first through the inclusion of purpose, cause and result. They are the temporal and spatial interpretations of Give and Take and explain the process and growth-like character (temporal order) and the structural organization (spatial order) of the universe.32 The harmony between both sets of polarities and of the hierarchically structured universe is due to them. This purposive order starts on the lowest level with formless energy and gradually increases in complexity: elementary particles, atoms, molecules, plants, animals, and humanity as the final purpose in the visible universe. Each level and its subsystems is oriented towards its higher one through the internal telos, and the whole temporal and spatial order is regulated by those principles of the temporal and structural telos into a related whole.
To be precise, these metaphysical principles are not ethical principles in the proper sense. They are ontological constructs, explaining the natural order of the cosmos. As I understand them, they are not the direct epistemological basis of ethics; they are correlatively related to ethics as external form (order) is to internal character (ethics).
Anthropology
It has become apparent that the universe is oriented toward humanity in Unification theology. Humanity, on the other hand, is oriented toward God. It is created uniquely in God's image. Henceforth, humanity's nature, life, task, in brief, its purpose, is not merely determined by the automatic workings of natural law, but demands freedom in responsibility.
However, man is created to attain his perfection not only through the dominion and autonomy of the Principle itself, but also by accomplishing his own portion of responsibility in passing through this period.33
This co-responsibility signifies the sharing in God's creativity. It occupies a central role in Unification theology.
Unification theology points to the Bible in explaining the meaning of co-creativity: "Therefore, when God created Adam and Eve, He gave them three great blessings: to be fruitful, to multiply and fill the earth, and to subdue it and have dominion (Gen. 1:28)."34 This threefold blessing, in one sense, may be understood, like Bonheoffer's concept of the mandate, as a "divinely imposed task."35 In a more specific sense, it is the purpose of creation which assures the happiness of humanity -- thus, the term "blessing." More concretely, the three blessings mean the maturity of the individual, the family and the universe; and as expressed in relational terms, the establishment of the harmonious correlation of the individual's mind and body, of husband and wife, and of humanity and nature.
It is important to note that Divine Principle explains this all by correlating the three blessings to the temporal and structural (Four Position Foundation) metaphysical principles. Thus, the harmonious relationships which comprise the three blessings are always related to God as the origin of that purpose, on the one hand, and the fulfillment of that purpose, on the other. That means that the blessings can only be realized as intended by God when those relationships are pursued with an orientation towards God and his/her purpose (God's heart), on the one hand, and their earnest fulfillment through the multiplication of fruits (e.g., having children), on the other.
The family occupies the central role because it is the place where humanity's co-creativity and thus the imago Dei is most essentially revealed. It is, so to speak, the place of the institutionalization of God's children. Furthermore, it is the place where God's love can qualitatively be realized on the smallest level through the different familial relationships. Even in society, "all the love that man manifests is applied, changed or combined family love."36 The way God expresses his/her love is through the different roles that men and women take in relation to one another. The three basic forms of God's love are the unconditional love of parents for their children, the conjugal love of husband and wife, and the filial piety of the children for their parents.37 By growing and passing through the different roles in the family, men and women mature to know the heart of God, the ground and source of motivation for the different forms of love. Everyone is to inherit this heart so that he/she may be able to act with appropriate love in any situation: "Consequently ethics should be established on the basis of the relations of Heart among family members."38
Through the gradual extension of the family to a society, nation and world, over many generations, a one-world-family and culture should have originally been erected on the model of the family. This leads to the third blessing through which humanity attains the realization of lordship over creation. In this function, humanity becomes "the mediator and the center of harmony" and "the microcosm" of the universe.39 This blessing includes the attainment and practice of techniques and skills in the spheres of technology, administration, art, science, etc.40
In conclusion, the religions, individual, familial, social and natural spheres are all aspects of being human. Any reductionisms, such as naturalism are to be rejected. The human being is essentially polyspheric (living in different spheres at the same time) and interdependent.
Ethics
Unificationism's temporal polysphetic ideal (the Kingdom of God or the three blessings as the true, the beautiful and the good life) includes more than the ethical dimension. At the same time, the ethical sphere is an important part of that ideal in which the three blessings imply an ethics with an individual, social and universal component. In the following, several rudiments of the Unification approach to ethics may be delineated.
a) The Christian imago Dei
Unification theology echoes fully the Christian idea of the unique worth of every person because of his/her creation in God's image. But it modifies this approach by regarding the fully harmonized image of God as the harmonized relationship of husband and wife and their relationship to their children and the creation.
b) The Familial Norm
In addition to the biblical influence on Unification ethics, the social-ethical ideal is, without doubt, closely related to Confucian ethics and is even regarded in Unification Thought as a "modern Confucianism." Dr. Lee intends to give Confucianism a new religious basis: Unification theology.41 From the point of view of society, the family is to serve as a model to insure the moral standard. Dr. Lee even goes so far as to argue that the ethics of special sectors of society belonging to the third blessing, such as economy, work relations and politics, are to be primarily regulated by family ethics.42
The intention of Unification Thought, to combine the Christian tradition, centering on the worth of the individual in relation to God, with the Confucian tradition, centering on the worth of the individual in relation to the family, must be valued as a sincere and creative effort that seeks to overcome the shortcomings of both. Unificationism's theocentrism and teleology have to be considered as an important modification of traditional Confucian ethics. In turn, its family-centered hermeneutics introduces a novel approach into Christian theology and ethics.
c) Philosophical Meta-Ethics
Western and Taoistic, as well biblical and Confucian, elements are synthesized in the metaphysics of Unification theology. This synthesis still awaits further conceptual clarification in light of those traditions.43 The extension of the more horizontally constructed yin-yang philosophy of interdependence through the teleological and dualistic elements of inner character and outer form, reminiscent of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, should not be underestimated. What could possibly prove to be the most important contribution to Western philosophy is the stress on a relational and complementary view of an interdependent reality based on the harmony and interdependence of material and spiritual elements in society and the quest for harmony and mutual appreciation between religion and science.
According to the fundamental principle of interdependence, individual ethics and social ethics are to be congruent parts with family ethics as the outer norm and with its expression through the conscience as the individual standard.44 Through the centering of our conscience on God, i.e., his/her heart and purpose, and on responsible action (the individual's own portion of responsibility), harmony between mind and body is supposed to be achieved. The crucial environment for the gradual attainment of that harmony is the family context, providing both guidance in the process of growth for the interiorization of purpose and responsible action. If one follows this argument to its logical conclusion, the search for the ultimate norm will finally lead to God's logos. A certain similarity of Unification theology with Plato's thought cannot be denied.45 Yet, the distinction from Plato lies in the positive view of the world as the substantial reflection of God's logos. The family is to be the incarnation of this logos and family ethics its ethical dimension. The logos in God, the ethics in the family, and the metaphysical principles in the cosmos are nothing but the same principle in different forms of abstraction in the different dimensions of Unification reality. The three blessings, realized through the family, are only the concrete unification (harmonization) of these dimensions.
d) An Ethics of Heart and Love
Rainet Flasche already mentioned that Unificationism's use of heart in conjunction with the search to insure happiness is based on a long tradition in Korea.46 These elements determine the eudaemonistic character of Unification ethics. It may thus never be construed as a pure ethics of duty in the Kantian sense. It rather parallels Augustine's ethics of love and its underlying eudaemonism.
Ultimately, Unification ethics traces everything back to love and heart as the ground of motivation and the essential meaning of life.47 This also applies to God: "God's purpose in creating the universe was to feel happiness."48 Here, Unification theology goes beyond Augustine, and yet, with him, it is concerned with the object of love.49 In Unification ethics, this object is the family. The keeping of the right position in relation to parents or elders, husband and wife, and children or peers is paramount.50 It makes for the three essential forms of love, filial piety, fidelity, and parental love -- again, elements of the Confucian tradition.
e) An Ethics of Social Harmony and Justice
The philosophical basis of love in Unification theology is interdependence and purposiveness. Every existence in the universe is seen to have a dual purpose corresponding to inner character (purpose of the whole) and external form (purpose of the individual). On the human end, the individual purpose is directed toward the maintenance of the individual and the wholistic purpose toward the well-being of the whole. Since the purpose of the whole corresponds to internal character, it is meant to assume a guiding role without destroying the basic complementarity. "Therefore, there cannot be any purpose of the individual apart from the purpose of the whole, not any purpose of the whole that does not include the purpose of the individual."51
To that end, a harmonious society is comprised of harmonious relationships which consist of harmonious actions of give and take in which the individual purposes are in harmony with the purpose of the whole society. Again, harmony and order in society occur when the giving in the give and take actions of society becomes the leading aspect of orientation. This element of altruistic love is to be maintained through the God centeredness of individuals.52
Because of the principle of interdependence, however, Unification theology does not posit unconditional love or selflessness to be the moral norm of harmonious society, though it may be considered an ideal, a guiding light toward which individuals and groups should be inspired to strive. This ideal may be closely resembled by the saints' faith and striving for selflessness, by the parents' unconditional love, by the spouses' fidelity, by some friends' total trust, and perhaps by a scientist's devotion to the search for truth, to name only a few pertinent examples. Most naturally, the unconditional dimension of love may be developed and experienced through the raising of children by parents. In that sense, it could be spoken of as a moral principle. However, the moral principle for society at large, or justice, is rather harmonious giving and taking (receiving).53 Consequently, the Unification idea of the Kingdom of God on earth is, ethically speaking, also a polyspheric kingdom, that is, one of interdependence, mutuality and complementarity permeated by unconditional love, by faith, fidelity, devotion and other altruistic ideals, but most essentially one that is oriented around the earthly ideal of love in the family.
f) An Ethics of Tradition
It is a well-known fact that the Far Eastern tradition has put the family in the center of ethics, whereas a large part of the Western tradition has acknowledged the individual or the state in its place. While Unificationism shows some similarity with Plato's idealism, it, nevertheless, focuses on the incarnation of the ideal in the family as the verification of the norm for ethics. The parents are to pass on this norm through the education of their children. It becomes obvious here why Unificationism emphasizes education as much as it does.54
There remains, however, the problem of the first incarnation of that ideal. It appears logical then that Unification theology attributes great weight to the mission of the first ancestors which were to incarnate that norm in order to establish a heavenly tradition and pass it on to their successive generations. Again, it becomes obvious why Unification theology views the Fall of humanity as such a great tragedy and history in light of the missions of central figures who have the aim of restoring the original ideal of True Parents. To that theme, we must turn our attention now.
Anthropology and the Fall
Unification theology explains the Fall of our first ancestors by drawing upon the anthropological elements mentioned in the previous section, namely, the process of growth, responsibility and the power of love. This responsibility consisted in obedience toward God, to keep his/her commandment not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. In a positive sense, Unification theology interprets this to mean that God wanted to protect Adam and Eve from having sexual relations before attainment of their spiritual and physical maturity, their first blessing (oneness of mind and body). That implies that God's commandment had only temporal significance.55
As has been pointed out before, the main element in Unification ethics is ordered love through the family. The concern in this familial order is to first insure the growth of vertical love of filial piety toward God and the parents, that is, to nurture the altruistic element in the child. This pious orientation should guarantee the maturity of the individual before the sexual union between a man and a woman, for without this vertical relation there would exist the danger of the misuse of the horizontal love between the sexes and consequently the corruption of family relations and order. Thus, piety, faith in God's word, was originally to secure the temporal and structural order of love.
The Fall consisted precisely in the breaking of this commandment during the growth process. The result was the destruction of the divine familial order and the establishment of a tradition influenced by Satan, the former archangel. In essence, the originally intended piety toward God became bent toward the self. Divine Principle speaks in this connection also about the corruption of humanity's original nature due to the Fall. In contrast to the Reformation, Unification theology, as I see it, does not teach the total corruption of the original nature of humanity. Humanity has, rather, fallen into a state of conflict with the fallen nature, acquired by the Fall. In this state of conflict, humanity desires to be good, but is continuously drawn to do evil, and thus not able to reach its ultimate goal; humanity remains in conflict, that is, in a position between God and Satan.
The crucial question here concerns the degree to which humanity, according to Unification theology, is still able to discern truth and goodness. While Frederick Sontag thinks it not possible for the average person to reach the right understanding of God by way of natural knowledge, Sebastian Matczak believes that Unification theology, in this respect, is reconcilable with Roman Catholic teaching.56 In my view, Unification theology is not as much concerned with rational knowledge as with "knowledge" of the heart (of God), that is, with love and will.57 It is also anxious to point out the supernatural imprisonment of humanity by the forces of Satan.58
In spite of that, Unification theology will have to face up to these crucial questions about the natural knowledge of God. I am not ready to align myself with either position. I am more prone to accept the ambiguity and tension within Unificationism at this point; that is, the conviction in humanity's potential for responsibility, as well as humanity's need for the crucial help of God and his/her prophets to release and focus that potential.
Restoration
The Fall did not change God's purpose, but rather altered the way of its realization, since a great obstacle had been put between God and humanity and the fulfillment of God's Kingdom. In essence, restoration is the reversal of the fall: the separation of humanity from Satan, the recreation of humanity's original nature and, finally, the realization of the Kingdom of God.59
The principles in the process of restoration consist in the principles of creation and in some special principles of restoration necessitated by the fall. The principles of growth (temporal) and of structure (spatial) ate reflected in providential time periods and the Cain-Abel dialectic. Restoration is, thus, the history of temporal and structural reordering oriented around the purpose of creation as the partial means and telos.60 On the other hand, the history of restoration is tied to anthropology, especially to responsibility. The history of restoration teaches us today that responsibility consists in the restoration of the lost conditions by the Fall through indemnity.
Filial piety and the actualization of the purpose of creation -- concepts of the doctrine of creation -- return here as faith and the laying of conditions. That faith and those conditions are indemnity, because it is now more difficult to have faith in God, in consequence of a loss of spiritual perception, and it is now necessary to put a greater emphasis on the leading aspect of love, that is, selfless love or even sacrificial love, in consequence of the selfishness of humanity. Restoration is, therefore, the building of God's Kingdom through indemnification by faith and sacrificial love.
The differentiation of faith and works, so crucial to Reformation faith, is thus also known in Unificationism. Unification theology's understanding of faith, however, is not as specifically focused on the concept of "justification by faith," since it understands restoration as a gradual process (the importance of the notion of process in Unification thinking!), as a Heilsgeschichte. I do think that the aspect of faith clarified by Luther is one stage in the development of faith true to Unificationism. The less dichotomizing view of faith by Calvin is even closet to the heart of Unificationism.
The conditions of faith, which are to restore the vertical orientation toward God, involve, for example, prayer and fasting.61 We find here many of the ascetic practices of the Unification lifestyle. But nothing of that kind will be sufficient to truly unite God and the individual. God will only be fully known by the person's becoming enclosed into God's heart. The correlative basis to that end, a "foundation of substance" on the human side, is accomplished by service for reconciliation. Unification employs here the dynamic of the Cain-Abel paradigm: The person in the Cain position is to serve from a subordinate position the person in the Abel position. The latter, in return, has the responsibility of reconciling with Cain, so as to lead him to God. This is nothing but the attempt to restore the rebellious nature of Cain (representing symptomatically the fallen nature of humanity), on the one hand, and the broken heart of God (the Abel position comes to appreciate the condition of God's heart of sacrifice through loving and seeking reconciliation with the rebellious one), on the other.
This principle of the central figure, of Abel, determines the course of histoty.62 The person(s) chosen by God as the Abel figure serves God as mediator and prophet who has the mission to lead the person(s) in the Cain position back to God. It is thus important to know the who, when, and where of Abel.
The teaching of restoration is mainly an interpretation of history, the development of which is clarified through the Cain-Abel dynamic. Cain is always the person or group relatively more distant from God, and Abel the person or group relatively closet to God. The work of reconciliation under Abel's leadership is supposed to advance goodness. It began with Adam's family and extended socially into the people of Israel who as the chosen ones in the Cain position were to welcome and follow Christ in the Abel position. The Christians, taking up the unfinished task, were to unite the whole world with God and usher in his/her Kingdom.63
This typology also embraces secular realms. The battle between God and Satan reaches from the divided heart of the individual to the different areas of today's society, culminating finally in the struggle between the democratic and Communist world.64 This is different from Augustine's teaching of the two kingdoms in that this battle will eventually end on earth by the victory of God's greater love. The end is theologically secured, but the duration depends on the degree of humanity's response-ability.65 The Messiah is not able to change that fact which contributed to the incompletion of Jesus' mission.66
Ethics
As already anticipated in Part I, the ethics of restoration is not essentially different from the norm of the earthly ideal. It is primarily an ethics of ordering, though reordering during restoration, and an ethics of love, though sacrificial love during restoration. There is the vertical aspect of love, piety then and faith now; and there is the horizontal aspect, mutual love then and sacrificial love now. The purpose is the same, one world family; only the means have shifted relatively away from the individual concern toward reaching God and the other more intensely. Most importantly, though, faith and sacrificial love are not to be ends in themselves, falling into danger of becoming static concepts, but their purpose is the restoration of the fallen relationship to God and humanity through the building of God's Kingdom. Although there is an ascetic dimension in Unification practice, it very often has a social end; e.g., prayers are offered as prayers of intercession, and conditions, such as fasting, are offered for the reconciliation between Cain and Abel. The same is true in regards to love. Sacrificial love is not an end in itself.
The Cain-Abel patterns, mostly accounts of stories from the Old Testament, are also employed as ethical models for the behavior and action of Unificationists. They are in the back of the Unificationist's mind, available as means of interpretation, analysis and ethical reflection about events on any level.67 It is readily understandable that these different Cain-Abel interpretations include a broad spectrum of behavior patterns and strategies. Selfless love may mean absolute discipleship, obedience, heroic endeavor, spiritual and even physical struggle.68
In actuality, the question, "What shall we do?", is not so much answered by way of individual reflection, but rather in the concrete context of the actual relationship to the local church leader as Abel. This is exactly the reason for the charismatic character of the Unification movement as also for its tendency towards a sectarian mentality in practice -- the importance of discipleship and the orientation on personal models and patterns in place of an ethics petrified into laws. If this understanding of the inherent logic of Unification ethics is correct, the question about today's central Abel figure must be of momentous importance.
In one sense, Divine Principle considers itself as the interpretation and determination of the who-where-and-when.69 Its detailed and intricate theology of history seeks to bolster the contention that it is now possible to build the Kingdom of God on earth on the foundation of the love and direction of the Messiah as True Parent. A relationship of filial piety with the True Parents will bring forth the rebirth of True Children of God, and the building of true marriages and families will bring the three blessings to fruition. Furthermore, the extension of these blessed families, centering on the Messiah, will lead to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.70 The more religiously oriented democratic societies will prove to be a much more fertile ground for the fulfillment of that purpose than the atheistic Communistic societies. In fact, the latter societies, being on the Cain side, are the ones most likely to thwart God's plan. Thus, the opposition against Communism.
Of course, such an ethics is open to a great many dangers, as well as it may be the cause tot genuine idealism and enthusiasm. But the primary concern must be with the possible safeguards built into its system. These and other aspects will need much more attention than is warranted by the little space left for discussion.
It has become plain that the Unification ideal seeks to synthesize the individual ethics of the imago Dei with the Confucian tradition by positing the union between man and woman as the full image of God.71 The concept of the vertical and horizontal interdependence in Unification ontology is developed to harmonize these strands as expressed in the structural and temporal metaphysical principles (Four Position Foundation)72 On the human level, this is a rotating subject-object relationship, with God as the origin and the children in the position of object, i.e., a monogamous and God-centered nuclear family, ordered by the three types of love. Although this ideal is quite specific in one sense, ruling out other historical and contemporary forms of family, there remain questions, for example, about the particular roles of husband and wife -- a sensitive question in contemporary society.
Following the implications of Unification Thought, the concept of the Unification family leans definitely towards a Confucian type, especially in light of the prevalent strain of the ethics of tradition in Unification theology. Yet, when looking at the practice of the Church -- I am speaking of my own observations -- various interpretations abound. There are patriarchal, puritanical and egalitarian types, Japanese, American and German expressions of families, to name only a few. The ideal of fidelity leaves a wide range of interpretations; or does it? My question, thus: Is the movement's intent basically to emphasize the God-centered family, which would allow for a pluralism of family norms within the defined parameters? Or, is it interested in establishing a more specific Unification family ethics which is perhaps still to emerge?
Certainly, in comparison to other theologies, Unification theology possesses a solid theological foundation for the family, since the idea of the family is rooted hermeneutically in the theology. However, it is not possible to have a family that transcends culture. The specific ethical content of the Unification family -- and, indeed, that matters very much -- will depend on the widest frame of the surrounding culture.73 On the one hand, Unification theology is right in avoiding the individualistic bias of some Christian theologies. On the other hand, it needs to be careful not to limit its interpretation of the family ideal to one specific cultural expression by looking at it through the spectacles of some existing culture. As for now, all Unification theology may say about its culture is that it should be familial and God-centered and that it should be unified and universal. The questions as to what "universal" and "unification" specifically mean are crucial for the assessment of Unification ethics. They will become more pressing as the Unification Church moves sociologically into its second generation worldwide and as the centrifugally growing national interests within the church gain in momentum. I would, thus, like to emphasize that much attention will have to be directed toward addressing these concerns in future deliberations.
A related question is that of the adequacy of the family as an ethical model for society. Some of the assumptions in Unification Thought seem strikingly naive. For example:
The numerous labor problems in capitalist society for example, can be solved, if family ethics are applied to the economic world. 74
Such contentions may have transformative value, but would prove wholly inadequate by closer ethical analysis.75 There is, however, also the model of the otganism in Unification theology which could be used in conjunction with the paradigm of the family, in order to prevent a naive and perhaps dangerous familism.76 It is thus a quintessential task for Unification ethics to clarify the relations between family and state and other parts of society, if for no other reason than to protect the individual and the family itself.77
In Unification theology, justification is no longer confined to the individual's relation to God, but includes social reconciliation. The union between God's heart and the human heart is not an individual matter, but closely related to social action. It is largely through the dialectic of prayer and action, of life experience, that God is understood as the loving and suffering parent. There is a radical concern with the transformation of this world and the responsibility of humanity and the salvific elements contained therein. That dynamic, again, is most clearly worked out in the area of preparation for the family and in the family itself. The marriage partners are also to be each other's "messiah," so that salvation may be attained through the helping of one another in working toward a "perfect" family and, hence, as well a "perfect" individual.78
I think the crucial idea of Unification theology can be summed up in a modification of one of Luther's most innovative concepts, namely, the priesthood of all believers: Unificationism elevates the concept of messiahship to the messiahship of all believers. This conception endows every member with the feeling of significance and responsibility -- God and humanity depend on me! This is not to mean the dethroning of God or his/her Messiah. Unificationism rather seeks to restore the potential of divinity in humanity. It is clear, however, that this conception harbors the potential of opening tremendous resources both in the positive and negative sense. We may, thus, summarize both the possible revisions and the internal resources available for the guidance and containment of the elements of perfectionism, utopianism, self-righteousness, and sectarianism within the system of Unificationism.
A realistic evaluation of the concept of the Kingdom of God on earth led us to understand the humaneness of the Unification idea of perfection based on mutuality rather than selflessness. One problem for the Unification approach rests on the tendency towards the simple identification of family ethics with the ethics of the greater society. Another possible problem may lie in the restorative fervor and the demands made upon the individual by an overly dualistic understanding of reality. The criticisms and suggestions, above, towards the correction of these problems consist essentially of rigorous social analysis and emphasis on relativization. The question of ideology and cultural bias in Unificationism may be contained through the rigorous analysis of its own presuppositions as indicated in regards to its concept of the family. The possibility of too narrow a focus on any leader, prophet or messiah, may be countered by Unificationism's concept of the messiahship of all believers and with the concept of unification.
Other elements built into the structure of Unification theology, which fortunately limit any radical utopianism, such as Marxism, are: the affirmation of inalienable orders in society (individual, family, vocation), the heilsgeschichtliche view of continuity between Judaism, Christianity and other religions, the transcendent ultimate ideal of the Kingdom of God in Heaven, the compatibility of revelation and reason, and the idea of redemption through unification and reconciliation centering on love.
1. This argument was already introduced by Herbert Richardson at the "Frankenthaler Gespraeche" in Germany in 1982. He differentiated several phases of the Unification movement which he saw intimately linked with the perspective and experience of its founder, Sun Myung Moon. Herbert Richardson, "Theologische Aspekte der Vereinigungskirche," in Neue Religionen -- Heil oder Unheil?, eds. Kurt E. Becker and Hans-Peter Schreiner (Landau, Pfalz, Germany: Pfaelziche Verlagsanstalt, 1982) 39-43; this volume is from hence on abbr. as Neue Religionen.
2. [Sang Hun Lee], Unification Thought (New York: Unification Thought Institute, 1973). Its expanded new edition, Explaining Unification Thought (New York: Unification Thought Institute, 1981), has been left almost unchanged concerning its chapter on ethics. Only the added chapter on the theory of education may be of further relevance to ethics.
3. Young Oon Kim, Unification Theology and Christian Thought (New York: Golden Gate Publishing Co., 1975). The revised edition of 1976 shows virtually no changes concerning ethics. In her completely reworked version, Unification Theology (New York: HSA-UWC, 1980) the chapter on ethics is dropped.
4. E.g., see Richard Quebedeaux, ed., Lifestyle: Conversations with Members of the Unification Church (New York: Rose of Sharon, 1982) ix, 125-139, 7, 93-102; this volume is from hence on abbr. as Lifestyle.
5. Guenter Kehrer, "Ethos und Handeln im System der Vereinigungskirche," in Das Entstehen einer neuen Religion. Das Beispiel der Vereinigungskirche, ed. Guenter Kehrer, (Muenchen, Germany: Koesel-Verlag, 1981) 193; this volume is from hence on abbr. as Vereinigungskirche.
6. Cf., Taschenlexikon Religion und Theologie, 1971, vol. l.s.v. "Ethik," by Trutz Rendtorff, 260-261.
7. For a concise delineation of Lutheran, Calvinistic and Roman Catholic ethics see James M. Gustafson, Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1978) especially 1-29.
8. Cf., Wolfgang Trillhaas, Ethik, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Toepelmann, 1965) 12. Later, especially after Kant, other movements within Protestantism established again divisions between natural and revealed ethics.
9. Trutz Rendtorff, Ethik. Grundelemente, Methodologie und Konkretion einer ethischen Theologie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980) 12.
10. Divine Principle (Washington, DC: HSA-UWC, 1973); from hence on abbr. as Divine Principle. It contains the revelation of Sun Myung Moon and may thus be considered the official summary of the dogma of the Unification Church. It is a translation from the Korean original which is actually a discussion or elaboration of the original revelation received by Sun Myung Moon. A better translation of the Korean title may be: "Discourse on the Principle." For further clarification see especially, Young Oon Kim, Unification Theology 50; The Principle of Creation, The Principle Home Study Course, no. 1 (New York: HSA-UWC, 1979) vu; and Darrol Bryant and Durwood Foster, eds., Hermeneutics and Unification Theology (New York: Rose of Sharon, 1980) 63-5; this volume is from hence on abbr. as Hermeneutics and Unification.
11. E.g., see: Young Oon Kim, Divine Principle and Its Application (Washington, D.C.: HSA-UWC, 1968) iii-xi; Divine Principle, 16; Lifestyle, A and 6; and Frederick Sontag, Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church (Nashville: Abington, 1977) 29, 30, 33, 38-39 and in the words of Rev. Moon himself: 132, 134, 136, 140 and 144.
12. Cf., Rainer Flasche, "Die Lehren der Vereinigungskirche," in Neue Religionen, 124.
13. Cf., the two articles by Dagfin Aslid, "Unification Theology as History" and "The Future of God," in Hermeneutics and Horizons: The Shape of the Future, ed. Frank K. Flinn (New York: Rose of Sharon, 1982) 251-259 and 399-407 and the following discussion in the same volume; this volume is from hence on abbr. as Hermeneutics and Horizons.
14. Cf, Wolfgang Pannenberg, Ethics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981) and Theology and the Kingdom of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977).
15. In one of the clearest forms this appears in Juergen Moltmann, The Future of Creation. Collected Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 164.
16. For parallels of Unification Theology and the Greek tradition see especially Constantine Tsirpanlis, "The Blessed Virgin's Place in God's Redemption According to the Church Fathers and Unification Thought," in Orthodox-Unification Dialogue, ed. Constantine Tsirpanlis (New York: Rose of Sharon, 1981) 103-107.
17. Divine Principle, 140-142.
18. Cf., H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row, 1951).
19. See, for example, Reinhold Niebuhrs attacks on K. Barth's ethics, in D.B. Robertson, ed., Essays in Applied Christianity (New York: Meridian Books, 1959) 141-96.
20. Gustaf Wingren has been advancing a formidable argument from a Lutheran perspective trying to point out the neglect of the doctrine of creation within Barthian theology and other recent theologies and their general misconceptions about the function and interpretation of a doctrine of creation within theology. See his The Flight from Creation (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1971).
21. Cf., Gustafson, 12-20.
22. Kim, Unification Theology (1980), 43-50.
23. The publication of two books on the hermeneutics of Unification Theology and Miss Kim's ample attention to the concept of revelation in her recent book demonstrate the relevance of the hermeneutical formulation of the question. See Hermeneutics and Horizons: Hermeneutics and Unification: and Kim, Unification Theology (1980).
24. Reinhold Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (New York: Seabury, 1979) 7 1.
25. Divine Principle, 142, 148.
26. Heinz Zahrnt, The Question of God: Protestant Theology m the Twentieth Century (London: Collins, 1969) 201.
27. Herbert Richardson, "A Lecture to Students at the Theological Seminary in Barrytown, New York," in A Time for Consideration, eds. M. Darrol Bryant and Herbert Richardson, (New York: Edwin Mellen) 302. This volume is from hence on abbr. as Consideration.
28. Positivity and negativity do not stand for good and evil. Divine Principle, 20-27.
29. Warren Lewis, "Is the Reverend Sun Myung Moon A Heretic?," in Consideration, 182.
30. [Lee], Explaining Unification Thought, 14.
31. Divine Principle, 28-31.
32. As space and time are actually always interrelated in beings so are the temporal and spatial forms of Give and Take. But for the sake of conceptual clarity, spatial order (structure) and temporal order (process and growth) are distinguished.
33. Divine Principle. 55.
34. Divine Principle. 41.
35. Dietrich Bonheoffer, Ethics (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1955) 207.
36. [Lee], Unification Thought. 230.
37. Divine Principle. 21.
38. [Lee], Unification Thought. 226.
39. Divine Principle. 59.
40. [Lee], Explaining Unification Thought, 226-27.
41. [Lee], Unification Thought, 231-32. See also Miss Kim's statement in her Unification Theology (1980), 77-80.
42. [Lee], Unification Thought, 233.
43. In my judgment, the glaring disparity among some scholars concerning the interpretation of Divine Principle has its cause in the tension created by this innovative synthesis. For example, because of his emphasis on the influence of Chinese philosophy on Unificationism, Rainer Flasche concludes that Unificationism is a natural religion and theology of creation; Rainer Flasche, "Hauptelemente der Vereinigunstheologie," in Vereinigungskirche, 41. Frederick Sontag contrasts this view most, rejecting the idea of Divine Principle as natural theology: "The 'average man' cannot discern God's nature simply by empirical observation." "It is the core of the Principle of God's action in history that is normative;" Frederick Sontag, "The God of Principle: A Critical Evaluation," in Ten Theologians Respond to the Unification Church, ed. Herbert Richardson (New York: Rose of Sharon, 1981) 117, 112; this volume is from hence on abbr. as Ten Theologians, Obviously, the present form of Unification theology still lacks precise articulation. Thus, these contrasting interpretations may be viewed as expressions of different moments that may eventually be weaved into a more tightly coherent fabric.
44. [Lee], Explaining Unification Thought. 232.
45. [Lee], Explaining Unification Thought. 232-33.
46. Flasche, in Neue Religionen. 108-11.
47. E.g., the first sentence in Divine Principle reads, "Everyone, without exception, is struggling to gain happiness."
48. Divine Principle, 41.
49. George Wolfgang Forell, History of Christian Ethics, vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1979) 165.
50. [Lee], Explaining Unification Thought, 235.
51. Divine Principle, 42.
52. Kim, Unification Theology (1980), 78.
53. See: Richardson, in Consideration, 300; The New Future of Christianity (Washington, D.C.: Unification Church International, 1974) 26-27; and cf., Charles Hartshorne, Reality as Social Process (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1953) 139.
54. E.g., the continuous emphasis on all kinds of workshops in the life of Unificationists, the fact that the Church established already an elementary and secondary school in Korea and a graduate seminary in Barrytown, New York, and its tremendous effort in support of conferences in all kinds of areas.
55. For notes throughout see the doctrine of the "Fall of Man," Divine Principle, 65-97.
56. Matczak, 327; Sontag, in Ten Theologians, 117.
57. The emphasis on knowing God's heart is a central aspect of Unification teaching e.g., Divine Principle, 238.
58. Kim, Unification Theology (1980), 123.
59. See especially the "Introduction" to Part II of Divine Principle. Divine Principle, 221-238.
60. See also "The Laws of History" in [Lee], Explaining Unification Thought, 291-315.
61. E.g., see Lifestyle, 51-71.
62. Almost the whole of Part II of Divine Principle is dedicated to the analysis of history in light of that concept.
63. The relativity of the positions needs to be mentioned: The same group may serve in the Cain and Abel position on different levels or may even slide from one into the other position due to failure or success.
64. An entire book published by the Unification Church seeks to refute the teachings and practices of Communism, Sang Hun Lee, Communism: A Critique and Counter Proposal (Washington, DC: Freedom Leadership Foundation, 1973) 77.
65. See the chapter on predestination in Divine Principle, 193-203
66. See the chapter on the mission of Jesus and the historical section in Divine Principle, 139-163 and 342-363.
67. The Rev. Moon's speeches are full of such analogies and reflections. See also the historical part of Divine Principle.
68. Stanley Johannesen's contribution is especially illuminating in this regard, "Historical Narration in Divine Principle: The Ideology of Religious Story," in Hermeneutics and Horizons, 281-314.
69. See the "Introduction" to Part I and the last chapter on the second advent of Part II of the Divine Principle. Divine Principle, 1-16, 497-536.
70. See also the interpretation of Rainer Flasche in Neue Religionen. 134-37.
71. The Unification doctrine of the trinity and logos are thus substantially modified by the inclusion of feminine as well as masculine aspects in the concept of God and the logos. Divine Principle, 205-218.
72. Divine Principle, 32.
73. This problem was the concern of the article of Johannesen, 281-314.
74. [Lee], Unification Thought, 236.
75. The history of ethical analysis is full of arguments against that simple identification of family and society. Even sociologically and anthropologically, there are natural limitations for familial association. See Reinhold Niebuhr, Man's Nature and His Communities (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965); Young Oon Kim's remarks in her Unification Theology (1980), 65; and Gene G. James, "Family, Spiritual Values and World Government," in The Family and the Unification Church, ed. Gene G. James (New York: Rose of Sharon, 1983), 255-268; this volume is from hence on abbr. as Family.
76. Franz Feige, "Die Betrachtung von 'innen.' Familie und Gesellschaft in der Vereinigungskirche," in Vereinigungskirche, 244-246.
77. This complex of problems raises an even more urgent question concerning the compatibility between the Unification ideal and the means of attaining it; see the sociological evaluation of this very problem by Eileen Barker, "Doing Love: Tensions In the Ideal Family," in Family. 35-52.
78. Hugh and Nora Spurgin, "Blessed Manage in the Unification Church: Sacramental Ideals and Their Application to Daily Marital Life," in Family. 121-137.