Second Coming Lecture -- Neil Albert Salonen

The Divine Principle teaches that because of the fall of Adam and Eve people became a blend of good and evil. Because Adam and Eve were unable to accomplish their own return to God, God divided the positions of good and evil through their sons, Cain and Abel, with Cain, the elder, representing the position of relative evil and Abel, the younger, the position of relative good. When Abel made his sacrifice and accomplished God's will, however, Cain did not fulfill his duty to God and accept that. Since the time of the tension and the struggle between Cain and Abel which resulted in Cain's killing Abel, there has been an historical tension between an Abel-type, God-centered point of view and a Cain-type, exclusively man-centered, or self-centered, point of view. It has been Cain's tendency to seek to dominate Abel even by killing him if necessary. It has been Abel's responsibility to win Cain. For example in the story of Jacob and Esau, through service, love and offering everything he had accomplished in his life to his brother, Jacob, in the position of Abel, won Esau, and the two of them accomplished the goal of unity in love.

At the time of the fall, separation from God took place on the individual level, but mankind expanded from the level of individuals to families, clans and nations. And so, at the time of Jesus, Jesus came not as an individual to individuals, but rather he came to a chosen nation and ultimately to a community of nations. The Cain-Abel resolution needed to be worked out on the worldwide level. According to the Divine Principle, at the time of Jesus, the ideologies of man-centeredness, and God-centeredness were that of Hellenism and Hebraism. Hellenism was a man-centered approach to understanding the world in which a great deal was accomplished in many fields of knowledge, for example, mathematics, medicine and astronomy. These fields were developed, however, with man at the center and were without a real appreciation of man's relationship to God. Hebraism, on the other hand, although centered on God, included a very elaborate set of covenants and restrictions which became cumbersome and separated Jews from the rest of the world. In order for the Jews to be faithful, it was necessary for them to sacrifice mankind's claim to a position of dominion in the world and simply take a position as object to God.

Remembering that these represent Cain and Abel blocks, it was not a choice of either/or. There was to be an effort to reunite these two views. The accomplishments of the Hellenic world were meant to be part of the heavenly kingdom, but they were to be subordinated to the values of God-centeredness. Whereas it would be the view of the Hellenic block to ignore, or even ultimately destroy or dismiss as mythological the belief in a transcendent God, that would not be the view of the Hebraic block. Jesus came as an individual to a chosen nation, and he would have worked within the nation to create a foundation for restoration. Nations representing the individual personages of Adam, Eve and the archangel would have become the building blocks of the kingdom of God on earth. Jesus came to the Adam nation of Israel; Eve was represented by the nation of Greece and the archangel by Rome. Rome was in the position of superior power, and virtually controlled the entire world. Had Jesus been able to continue his mission, he would have eventually taken his dispensation to Rome and from Rome would have sought to Christianize the entire world. Even though Jesus himself was unable to do this, his followers did. Peter eventually went to Rome. It was from Rome that the message of the gospel was meant to be spread, so the key foundation of unity before world restoration could take place would have been among the three nations: Israel, Greece and Rome.

There are certain parallel cycles in history specifically in preparation for the coming of" the messiah. After Malachi there was a four hundred year period when mankind, particularly the chosen people, went through great tribulation. The world changed. It was the time of Confucius, the time of Socrates, the time in which a number of other things were happening to prepare the world for the coming of the messiah. Because all that was hoped for was not accomplished at the time of Jesus, this period of preparation was redone. Thus, when we trace the history of the last two thousand years, four hundred years ago we again see a period of preparation for the return of Christ. We divide that four hundred year period into three blocks. The first is called a period of religious reformation, the second a period of struggle between religions and ideologies, and the third a period of maturity of ideologies. Based on the Cain and Abel view, we look at the world four hundred years ago and we see that there is a rebirth of these two ideologies in modern form. The Cain and Abel ideological struggle must be resolved, and the positions of the three nations must be fulfilled.

I don't know if there is a single way to date the beginning of the Renaissance, but I will take Aquinas as the point at which there was a tremendous new interest or new awareness of classical thinking on the part of the church. Aquinas was especially enamored with Aristotle, and so Aristotle, whose works had actually been forbidden by one of the Popes, was eventually revived through the work of Aquinas, and his thinking and his teaching were again studied and influential. Aquinas did a great deal for the church. He took a church which was very otherworldly, which was not in touch with the realities of life, and made the position of the individual more important. This was reflected in art. For five hundred years, Florentine art had been rather flat and symbolic. People had been conveyed more as symbols than as realistic characterizations. Aquinas believed that man's will was fallen but that the intellect was not, and so through the use of intellect man could reason his way back to the ideal state. This is a very positive view, but it eventually grew into a negative influence.

These ideas were reflected in the art and writing of the time. In writing the Divine Comedy, Dante incorporated images of both Christian and classical ideas so, for example, when he took the tour through hell, it was given by Virgil, the Roman poet. Francis Schaeffer points out that in Raphael's great painting, "The School of Athens," both Plato and Aristotle are shown. Plato has his finger pointed up toward a transcendent ideal, and Aristotle has his fingers spread and pointed down, meaning that Aristotle is really more concerned with the things of this world. Aristotle is not wrong, but his emphasis can eventually take things out of perspective. Humanism, a movement which sought to bring more dignity to the individual, was man-centered but it eventually lost its ability to give value to man himself. Michelangelo's great statue David is considered a classic, but it is not the Hebraic David at all. The statue is not circumcised. This is man being great on his own; this is not David of the Bible, but man himself becoming great. The view of the humanist was, "If you give me enough time I can do it all. I can become great; I can perfect my world." It unleashed a spirit of tremendous enthusiasm which accomplished many important things.

In contrast, the development of the Abel-type ideology started earlier with Wycliffe and Huss. It is usually dated specifically from Luther. Luther and the other reformers had a much more negative view of man and a more biblical view of the fall. They thought everything should be based on the scripture: sola scriptura. Everything had to be found in the Bible. Man is fallen; and does not have the ability to perfect himself without God. It is a common perception that if we are talking about the Renaissance and the Reformation, we are being asked to make a choice between culture, which is exciting, and religion, which is not. In fact the culture of the Renaissance, for example, the High Renaissance of southern Italy, eventually became distorted and debauched. Much of the really great culture of this period is Reformation art, epitomized by the works of Rembrandt. Rembrandt did a famous painting, "The Raising of the Cross," in which he painted his own face on the man who was raising the cross. It is his statement as a reformer, as part of the reformation community, that "I am responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus and by dying on the cross, Jesus is redeeming me." It is a personal confession of his need for salvation. The works of many of the Dutch masters show the world in its proper perspective as a world created by God. Everything, even an apple, has dignity and meaning because it was created by God. Bach acknowledged on the beginning of his score, "To Jesus be the glory, to God be the glory." Dtirer actually began before Luther, but his diaries show him to be a Reformation man, too.

To return to the original point, it was the view of some reformers, ultimately, as the Reformation matured not to simply dismiss the values of the Renaissance but to incorporate them. On the other hand, it was the view of many Renaissance figures to dismiss the claims of the Reformation. This was one stage, and we date this period as ending in 1648 with the treaty of Westphalia.

The second period is not as carefully defined and not as easily named, but it represents on the side of the Cain-type ideology the values of the Enlightenment. It is the period when Rousseau was writing about the general will, something which transcends man but which isn't God. Bacon, considered the author of empiricism, said that man knows only by his own experience. Descartes, considered the father of rationalism, said that man can know only by his reason. Both of these, and at the same time the developing concepts of deism, were attempts to work a compromise between a God-centered and a man-centered world view. However, their net effect was to center things upon man, since they contended that things had tremendous autonomous value, and even that man in his perception of God was at the center directing that search.

From the Abel-type block at the same time we see what could be called the Second Reformation. Kant hypothesized that man doesn't come to cognition only by his own experience or theoretical reason, but that his very subjectivity, especially his ethical consciousness implies that there is something actual beyond the phenomenal world. Ultimately then, for Kant, thought is grounded in an extra-phenomenal world. Hegel proposed the idea of an Infinite Spirit. The school of pietism was developed at that time along with Wesley's Methodism, George Fox with the Quakers, and Emmanuel Swedenborg began receiving revelations. Thus, the Abel-type camp was seeking to subordinate all experience to God and to understand the position of man in his proper perspective to the universe.

I would like to just skip the third stage for a moment. Since you have all read the book and you know we are tracing several threads at the same time, I would like to briefly discuss the development of the political society of the time. From a period of feudalism, European society entered the stage of the monarchy. According to the Divine Principle, the purpose of monarchy in God's providence was to centralize the people in order to prepare them to accept the messiah. Therefore, the king was in the position of the representative of the nation, and if the king were faithful, then through the king, the nation could be used by God. A certain relationship between religious leader and king developed, culminating in the relationship between Pope Leo II and Charlemagne in 800 AD. This relationship, however, did not succeed. Charlemagne and his successors rather than representing God, lost faith. Therefore, the monarchy was invaded by Satan and had to be cleared away for a new beginning in preparation for the messiah. The providence of democracy was really the providence of clearing away a non God-centered hierarchy in order to prepare a second, more difficult course -- that of God speaking to each individual directly.

Democracy itself can be divided into a Cain block and an Abel block. The French Revolution was an example of the Cain-type aspect of democracy, taking its values from the writers and the philosophers of the Enlightenment. The French Revolution was a glorious experiment. It is often considered the championing of the rights of man, which, in fact, it tried to do. But what was its fruit? It failed primarily because it was not based on a transcendent awareness of God, but rather was based on a humanistic view. It is ironic that it is the very humanism which seeks to do so much for man that ultimately strips him of his meaning and of his dignity. So, at the beginning, the prisoners of the Bastille were freed, the Declaration of the Rights of Man was written and there was great hope that the French Revolution was an important statement about the position of man and the possibility for man to develop himself. It was not a God-centered movement. They wanted to strip down all the cathedrals. They had a parade of people dressed up like Romans who carried a girl named the goddess of reason through the streets of Paris. She was enthroned in the cathedral, making it no longer a shrine to a transcendent God, but a glorification of reason. They changed the calendar, separating themselves from the event that took place at the time of Jesus, and beginning their own history again. The champions of humanity, the humanists, soon found themselves plunged into a barbarous reign of terror, which was in no way humanitarian.

On the Abel-type side, the Glorious Revolution in England, and the American Revolution and the political systems that were generated following those events were ones which began with a more negative view of man. They viewed man as being untrustworthy. Therefore, they wouldn't dare let anyone govern the other. Thus, they came up with elaborate systems of checks and balances. This very negative, more biblical view of man gave rise to more prosperous systems which attempted to protect the rights of individuals because they took into account man's shortcomings and imperfections.

In this period, these ideologies matured not just as ideas and thoughts, but as world views. Today there is a choice. The current man-centered ideology is historical materialism, or Marxism, the philosophical basis of the worldwide communist movement, which, although a great hope, has become the source of great pessimism because for all its dreams and hopes in Russia, in Cuba, in China, and everywhere else, those dreams are yet unrealized. The communist countries remain in a state of tension with the Western world because their system itself is inadequate to fulfill its own dreams. Communism (i.e. humanistic materialism) doesn't deal with reality comprehensively. The maturity of the Abel-type ideology on the other hand, must be a flowering of the values and ideals of the Reformation. It must be a flowering of the values of Judeo-Christianity. This is the position that an ideology or a theology like Unification theology must fulfill: a mature theology of unification which represents not just the hope of Christianity but also a plan for its fulfillment. We believe that we are living in the time when this age is dawning.

I said also that the position of the three nations must be fulfilled: Adam, Eve and the archangel must be represented on a worldwide level at the conclusion of the third stage of this ideological conflict between Cain and Abel sides. We are faced with an effort by the Cain-type ideology to establish a world order. The first attempt, the formation stage, was World War I. Professors of government often refer to World War I as a crisis of man's confidence in his ability to govern himself, even though the barbarity of World War II was much greater. Kaiser Wilhelm II was the central figure for the first worldwide attempt on the part of the Cain-type ideology to establish a world order. He had messianic expectations. When I visited in Jerusalem, I was shown the place where he had a special gate cut through the wall so he could be driven into the city in a carriage by twelve white horses. He really believed that he was setting up a new world order, but not because of God, not because of his concern for man, but because of his desire to create a Germany and a world according to his own view. On the Cain-type side, Germany was in the position of Adam, Austria-Hungary in the position of Eve, and Turkey in the position of the archangel. These three nations together sought to become the dominant world powers by initiating a world war. Responding from Abel's side, Tsarist Russia, in the position of Adam, England, in the position of Eve, and France, in the position of the archangel, sought to respond. But just as the first Adam had been struck down at the time of the fall, so also the Adam nation, Tsarist Russia, was struck down, and it was not until America fulfilled that role and joined the conflict that the tide was turned. What at first appeared to be the invincible forces of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey were turned back after the American commitment to the struggle. The victory was accomplished, and the first attempt on the part of the Cain-type ideology to establish a worldwide order was pushed back. This was the conditional formation stage: conditional payment of indemnity on the worldwide level to usher in the beginning of the period of the second advent.

The second attempt, the growth stage, again centered on the nation of Germany. Adolph Hitler is sometimes called an anti-Christ. Hitler came as a messiah with a dream of establishing a world order, with the goal of dominating the entire world not for God, not for his love for mankind, but because of his desire for power. Germany, Japan and Italy united together and sought to dominate the world. England and France were again pushed to the very edge as America failed to respond until the final moment. It took an incredible event in which Japan provoked the United States through its own miscalculation -- we would say through a providential mistake -- to enter the war. Finally when America committed its support to the war in Europe and in Asia, the tide was turned. The second attempt on the part of the Cain-type ideology to establish a world order centered on man failed, and the second stage of the payment of worldwide indemnity to prepare for the time of the second advent was fulfilled.

We are now living in the time of the third World War. The Divine Principle teaches that the third World War need not be a military war. The Cain side may try to attack Abel. If the Abel side fails to take responsibility, fails to commit itself, then a military conflict may break out. But if in fact we learn the lessons of history, the Abel side can take responsibility and like Jacob, love and serve. The Abel side must be absolutely committed to respond to the Cain-type world, to their questions, to their accusations, and to the defects in our own world system. Only then is there the possibility that the two can unite in love and reach a transcendent stage which would take on the best characteristics of both systems and be the foundation for a future world order, a kingdom of heaven on earth. This World War III is being undertaken now. But like World War I and World War II, the question of America's commitment to the struggle is central to its outcome.

The other peoples of the world know the question, but in America we don't. In America we don't conceive of communism as a problem even though it is to people all over the globe. In America we don't conceive of the problems of the rest of the world as being our problems. But this is changing. It is obvious since the oil crisis that America and her fate are inextricably intertwined with the fate of the entire world, and therefore it becomes the responsibility of the Abel-type ideology in the Western nations to make a commitment to resolve the conflict between the Cain and Abel blocks peacefully. The alternative is to watch a holocaust. The responsibility is ours; it is the responsibility of the Christian community generally, and particularly, we believe, the role of our movement centered on the Divine Principle.

When will the lord come again? When will Christ return? The Bible says that no one knows: not the son, not the angels in heaven, but only the Father knows. The Bible also says that he will come like a thief in the night, and so it has often been the traditional view that we can't know when the Lord will return.

It is not worth wasting time speculating on when the Lord will return. On the other hand, we have to be prepared to understand the lessons of history so that we don't repeat the historical mistakes. When the work of Elijah was not maintained, or the foundation that he accomplished was not maintained, it had to be redone. Amos says that God will always foretell: "Surely God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7) So despite the fact that we can't know long in advance when the Lord will come, that is not to say that we won't receive prophecy and revelation; the Bible says that we will. In the past we have, so we can expect that there will be prophecy and revelations concerning the time of the second coming. In Acts 2:17, the Bible says that in the last days God will pour out his spirit upon all flesh. In Matthew 24:14, it predicts the spread of Christianity -- when the gospel will be preached in all nations. So we are looking for certain signs. There is talk of tribulation, there is talk of Armageddon. The analysis of history through the application of Unification theology leads us to the conclusion that we are living in the time now when the Lord will come again.

How will he come? In Matthew it says he will come with a trumpet on a great cloud. In Revelation it says he will come on a cloud. So it has sometimes been the view that the Lord will return on an actual physical cloud. At an Evangelical conference that was held a few weeks ago in the New Yorker, one of the Evangelicals asked our Unification Church members, "What would destroy your faith?" For them he said it would be if they found the physical bones of Jesus somewhere; that would be the end of his belief and faith. What would it be for a Unification Church member? I know he was expecting me to say "Something that Rev. Moon might do wrong," but that wouldn't do it. That might be cataclysmic in some ways, but it wouldn't undercut the basic statement of the principle. So I thought for a minute and said, "Actually, what would do it is if Jesus came back on a cloud. Then we would have to rethink all our positions." (Laughter)

Elijah came as a prophet to prepare the people, bringing them back into faithfulness. But because the people fell back into faithlessness, in Malachi it prophesies that Elijah must come again. However, in Matthew 17:13, we find out that Jesus was teaching that John the Baptist was Elijah. Elijah himself didn't come, but someone else in the power and spirit of Elijah -- John the Baptist -- came to fulfill the role of Elijah. In Daniel we hear prophecy about the messiah appearing in the clouds like the son of man, and Jesus didn't come in the clouds, but he was born of woman on earth. Therefore, the prophecy of Daniel was not literally fulfilled at the time of Jesus, but rather Jesus came in the flesh. In Revelation 17:15, it says that the waters where the harlot is seated are many peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. We take that to mean that the water symbolizes people and that the clouds mean water at a higher level, or resurrected people. Thus, the Lord coming on the clouds means that he will come into a community of resurrected believers. He won't come alone; he won't stand as an individual somewhere, but he will come into a community, and he will be seen progressively by the world in clouds, that is, in the company of resurrected believers.

The lord of the second advent comes to restore what was lost at the time of Adam's fall. Adam was born as a man to represent the incarnation of the masculine aspect of God; Eve represented the feminine essence of God, and together they would have been a microcosm reflecting the basic nature of God. Because Adam and Eve fell it was necessary for a savior to come; therefore Jesus came, as Paul says, as the last Adam. Jesus had to come not on a cloud, but as a man so that his life, his ministry, all of his accomplishments, would have the significance of restoring or indemnifying what Adam had lost. Because Jesus represents the masculine aspect of God, he needed to marry someone who would represent the feminine essence of God. Together they would have represented the basic essentiality of God. Since the people didn't respond to Jesus, he was unable to establish that physical foundation. After his crucifixion, God gave him the Holy Spirit, representing the feminine essence so that together Jesus and the Holy Spirit represent a microcosm of the finite totality of God. Through our relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, for the first time in history we can have a relationship with God.

But this work must be completed on earth. Therefore, just as Elijah didn't come again, and just as in the principle of creation we don't believe in the doctrine of reincarnation, we think that Adam's position itself must be fulfilled. Then someone must come to complete the work of Jesus on earth. The position of the lord of the second advent is completely intertwined with the position of Jesus. It is not a different lord; it isn't another foundation. It has to be someone who completes Jesus' work on earth. So there must be absolute oneness between the coming lord and Jesus himself. In Revelation and in Luke, we see that there are passages which refer to a male child being born, someone with a new name.

According to Luke the kingdom of God is coming not with "signs to be observed." (Lk 17:20) If Jesus came on the clouds, we would all observe that. Jesus asked if he would find faith on earth (Lk 18:8). If the heavens opened and a cloud came down, we would all find faith quickly. All those things to us indicate that the lord of the second advent, most logically and most consistently with the scriptures would appear in the same way that the lord appeared two thousand years ago -- as a man, without signs to be observed, but nevertheless chosen by God to complete the work of establishing the foundation for the kingdom of God on earth.

Where will he come? When a central person fails in his or her responsibility, Divine Principle shows they are not used again. When Adam failed, he himself could not establish the foundation for the kingdom of heaven. Even though Abraham accomplished on many levels, he failed in correctly making his offering, and thus the dispensation for the foundation of faith was prolonged through Isaac to Jacob. Thus, the Cain and Abel relationship which should have been worked out between Ishmael and Isaac as the sons of Abraham was extended to Esau and Jacob, the sons of Isaac. It was extended because of Abraham's failure. When someone fails, God doesn't use that person again but makes a new attempt, a new beginning. When John the Baptist didn't fulfill his responsibility, Jesus had to fulfill it and went into the wilderness to fast for forty days to make the foundation that he should have inherited from John. The people of Israel failed to accept Jesus, and "Israel" became a spiritual community. Paul testifies to the new Israel, the Christian community, to which the lord will come: not the same chosen people of two thousand years ago but a new community, a spiritual community, a worldwide community. So we can deduce from all these things that the lord will come some place different from where he came before.

The Divine Principle teaches that the lord must come to a seat of devout Christianity. He must come to a nation prepared, a chosen nation, meaning a Christian nation. He must come to a microcosm of the entire world, a nation where Eastern and Western philosophies are mixed, a nation which is divided between the Cain and Abel blocks, which is at the very frontline of that confrontation, a nation which is the universal altar, which has never been aggressive but rather has suffered many times, suffered as a sacrifice for the suffering of mankind, a nation of messianic expectation. This country is not specifically stated, or should not be specifically stated in Unification theology, but it is the actual belief of the Unification Church members that this is the nation of Korea. We don't believe that it is an historical necessity that it be Korea. We believe that it is a fact that Korea happens to be one of the places where the lord of the second advent could appear.

What are the qualifications for the messiah?

The lord of the second advent must inherit the foundation of Jesus. He must stand on the foundation of Jesus. That is central to his claim for authority. Secondly, he must bring new revelation which clarifies things which are ambiguous or unclear in previous revelation. Thirdly, he must fulfill the three blessings: be individually perfect, establish the family which reflects oneness with God, and gain dominion over the physical universe, bringing it back into a direct relationship with God.

It is best if I add one closing note, my testimony as a member of the Unification Church movement for thirteen years. I certainly never understood the significance of many of the things I tried to explain today at the time that I first came in contact with the movement. I had been raised as a Lutheran in a fairly fundamental background. I left and became an agnostic. I had made an attempt to come back to the Lutheran church. I was concerned not so much about the fine points of doctrine but about being able to make sense out of the world in which I lived. When it comes right down to it, the reason I really became a member of the Unification Church is because I had an experience with God. In that experience, God came to me as a result of approaching him through an understanding of the Divine Principle. He is the same God you approach through every other understanding, but somehow things were clear that had never been clear before: the doctrine of the trinity, the hope for a world where change really could take place, the analysis of history, all those things. I did not meet Rev. Moon until two years after I joined the movement, so I wasn't caught up with his charismatic personality, if he has one. I was simply attracted to the teaching and the members. However, after meeting Rev. Moon, even if none of those things were true, I think my testimony might be that because of the relationship I have found with him, I have come to feel a relationship with God. I have come to feel God's concern for my life, God's hope for the world, God's belief in me. I have seen Rev. Moon as an example of faith. I have seen him as an example of love. I have seen him in ways that are so completely different from the way that he is often perceived that it makes me feel every day more responsible to do something to bridge the gap between what I know about him and what other people may think.

Discussion

Lonnie Kliever: Would you comment on how Rev. Moon fulfills the first blessing, in the sense of the perfection of life, by establishing the ideal, or righteous family and begetting children? Would you also make a comment about the perfection of Mrs. Moon?

Neil Salonen: When Rev Moon was sixteen years old, Jesus Christ appeared to him and began a period of revelation. During that time then he was taught through his spiritual encounters the fundamentals of the Divine Principle. I think that sometimes what we mean by this nine-year period of revelation may be misleading. It was not simply a hallucinogenic trip through the spirit world, but actually a time of incredible struggle and doubt; and only after enduring through every discouraging circumstance, Rev. Moon received some insight. One time Rev. Moon learned that the most fundamental truth of the universe was the father-son relationship. Can you imagine, after grappling with things, to suddenly have an intuition, or an insight, or even hear a voice and that's all it says? You're hoping for a lot more and instead you get "father-son relationship." Well, this is the way in which Rev. Moon began to understand our relationship to God and God's relationship to Jesus.

We also believe that Rev. Moon through understanding, pursuing and developing the principle came to the point at which he had to explicitly state what it was that Satan was guilty of. What was it that happened at the time of the fall? It's our belief that in front of the throne of God and before the hosts of heaven in spirit, he accused Satan of the specific action of the fall. And twice that was denied by all of heaven. Only when he persisted a third time was that acknowledged; and we believe Satan was vanquished at that point. Therefore at that point he established that victory over Satan. That's not exactly the moment when he individually fulfilled the first blessing, but that's an important key. From that point he simply lived in accordance with the teachings of God.

Lonnie Kliever: Just a footnote here. On what basis do you believe this? Is it because he has recounted this as a part of the esoteric tradition? I gather this is not publicly accessible, or at least I have never seen this in the sources of these things.

Neil Salonen: You didn't ever come to one of my workshops.

Lonnie Kliever: But he has told this to those who belong to the movement?

Neil Salonen: Yes, that's right. It isn't an esoteric teaching, although this story is not in the Divine Principle book.

Regarding the position of Mrs. Moon. We believe, first of all, that Rev. Moon is fulfilling a providential role. That role is not, at this point, very distinct in our minds. Whether it becomes a John the Baptist role, an Abraham role, or just what role (someone mentioned the other day that setting up families has more to do with Elijah perhaps than with the Messiah himself), the point is that we have great messianic expectations, as you know. But we're careful not to make claims that Rev. Moon hasn't made or that we cannot as yet really support. The point is that we see him setting up, according to this conditional pattern, an ideal family. It's our belief that Mrs. Moon shares in the accomplishment of that family. She has an interesting background, but she doesn't have, that I'm aware of, a specifically independent set of spiritual revelations.

Paul Sharkey: This question I've had for two days, but I've held it until now. With this lecture I thought it would be appropriate. It seems to me that Unification theology is making the same mistake that traditional Jewish theology made about the coming of the lord of the first advent. Unification theology lays down, even more than traditional Jewish theology did, the specifications for what counts as being the messiah. You've almost got a job description; if one could fulfill all of these things, maybe he could make a claim to being the messiah. And it seems to me that this specification limits very severely the idea of God's freedom, given the fact that through God all things are possible. Why is it that we have all these restrictions on who will possibly be lord of the second advent? What if the lord of the second advent comes but is rejected by the Unification movement precisely because he (I stress that) does not meet your national, geographical, historical, conceptual, cultural, religious understanding of him? There are many elements in your theology from which one could argue that the lord of the second advent might very well be a couple, and not an individual.

Herbert Richardson: Perhaps even a woman rather than a man.

Lorine Getz: Maybe some of the Unification women could speak to that. The whole position of Eve in the fall must be developed within Unification theology since it seems to me a view in which Eve is even more central than Adam to the process of restoration. After all, Adam fell after Eve in what you describe as a second fall. In terms of the full restoration, perhaps Eve is the one that leads the way.

Neil Salonen: These are not restraints on God's freedom; these are descriptions. I will make just two points. First of all, God does not have absolute freedom to do anything he wants. We teach that the principle is descriptive of his nature. It's not a limitation upon him but is an explanation of his nature. If I analyze your nature I'll find that you do certain things in certain ways. That's just a function of what your being is. So the principle is not a restriction on God's freedom.

Also, these qualifications for the messiah are not things which were set up long in advance and then limited the messiah when he came. Actually "messiah" means "the anointed one"; the messiah is the one who's anointed. The qualifications are things which are either deduced after the fact or which are marshaled after the fact to help people understand. It's not that in 1917 someone received the series of qualifications for the messiah and began looking for the person who filled the bill. There was a man who believed that the messiah was going to be someone with the name Mehr Baba. This is not like that. It evolves in a different way. Our understanding of the messianic role evolves as events unfold.

David Paulsen: Can you clarify your understanding of how messianic qualifications change? Has the messiah come?

Neil Salonen: I believe that after Rev. Moon was appointed to some messianic task by Jesus it then becomes clear why that happened in Korea. Why was someone like Rev. Moon chosen and not someone like Billy Graham from North Carolina, for example? That's what I mean. What exactly has happened is not so clear, but something has happened. And since it has happened, we analyze it and try to figure out why and what we can understand from it.

Paul Sharkey: On the one hand, I hear you saying that the description of the messiah is revealed. Then the notion that is at least implicit is that Rev. Moon has the characteristics which fulfill the role of messiahship. On the other hand, I hear time and time again that the question of what is involved in messiahship is known only after the completion of history, and that the question of who is, in fact, the lord of the second advent is one which we will only know after that fact, not before. This is the problem of building in preconditions of what exactly the nature of the completed history is going to be. History is not completed, so we don't know that. There seems to be not only an external problem, but an internal tension in the way the theology is presented.

Neil Salonen: Well, I think there are a lot of problems. I'm sure I don't even understand them all. But in reality it's a developing knowledge; we come to know things by stages. The things that we hold at this time are based on the things that we know at this time. And hopefully we're open enough to continue to receive more knowledge in other ways and therefore amend and adjust the things that we believe we know at this point.

Lorine Getz: I want to follow up Paul's point. We talked about this a bit in our small group. It seems to me that the position you just presented culminates in a reading of salvation history which I suspect is the story of the male's quest to return to the mother. If we look at your story in the context of a psychological model then it seems to me that you finally have completed that cycle where you have Jesus reunited with his spirit. And it seems to me that the issue that Paul raised is precisely the point, namely, that you present in the beginning a fall between Eve and Lucifer. Then that particular event gets edited out. We move immediately to Adam and Eve. From there it seems to me that you have an account of male individuation. In the second coming you have that second fall restored, but you have still never dealt with the question of women. I suspect that we in the rest of the West haven't either, but it seems to me that there are two things at issue: one of them women and the other the femininity in man. Ultimately what you're talking about in this understanding of history is the reconciliation between the masculine and feminine principles within the male. What's unaddressed and still to be done -- maybe we'll have to wait until the next revelation -- is the whole question of woman's fall. What is the meaning of the Eve/Lucifer account? Has she even fallen? Where is she in this restoration scheme? What's happening within feminine consciousness? Within the feminine spirit in women? I think this is critical but unaddressed in your theology. I see you only addressing the reconciliation of man to his own feminine spirit. Do you know what I mean?

Neil Salonen: Yes, I think I do. I don't agree with you, although I don't know if I can argue that persuasively at this point. Although we haven't especially addressed in the presentation of the principle that has been given this week, the significant role of women in providential history, there are many points at which that role is of extreme significance. I don't know how clearly that responds to what you are saying, but there have been a number of occasions where the providential responsibility for restoration has first been the woman's and only on that foundation is it possible for a man to accomplish his mission. Jacob escaped with the help of his mother, for example...

Lorine Getz: Excuse me, but let me suggest another confusion related to that. It seems to me that even in your example the woman as woman doesn't really make any difference.

Neil Salonen: I will admit that I may be, or that men in general may be, somewhat insensitive to the question. But as I hear your question, I think that you may be hypersensitive. I feel that the role of women is providentially significant and it's not over against men. Their victory is the foundation for the next stage to take place. So it is very much a unique singular event that must take place as a result of their fulfillment of their portion of responsibility.

Lorine Getz: The way I see it you define man's salvation at the expense of woman's. Woman's usefulness exists in so far as they are helping to continue history, science, male individuation, procreation, whatever, but they are not taken seriously for themselves.

Neil Salonen: What would you say to man falling as a result of Eve?

Lorine Getz: I think that's where we are. I think we might just as well admit that that's what we're thinking. It is a case of women having been raped by the male divine principle to begin with.

Neil Salonen: The basic principle teaches that men and women are not complete individually. They need each other to reflect the image of God. So there's no such thing as man without woman being saved or vice versa. Their salvation must be accomplished together.

Lorine Getz: I don't think that you can pull that off. Essentially this is because of the fall between Lucifer and Eve which I've heard people here define as qualitatively different and completely evil, very different from the fall between Adam and Eve. And that's where I think you get into trouble. I don't see that this ever gets rectified in your theology. Even the lord of the second advent doesn't seem to have any ability to restore that situation. You still have a gap in Unification theology that I don't think is addressed. It seems to me that it is only the second fall that gets redeemed.

Tom McGowan: Your interpretation of the Second World War is in terms of Abel-nations vs. Cain-nations. But, interestingly enough, you did not include the Soviet Union among the Abel-nations. I know the Divine Principle does refer to the Soviet Union as temporarily serving God's plan to defeat Hitler, but you do not have the Soviet Union in your charts. Why not? Then I'd like to know why there is no interpretation of the holocaust.

Neil Salonen: In the holocaust, eleven million people died in concentration camps: six million of them because they were Jewish, five million more for other reasons. I have never heard Rev. Moon speak directly about this, but I attribute that all to the Satanic attempt of the Nazi ideology to enslave the world.

Tom McGowan: Don't consider explaining the holocaust only through the Nazi ideology; I don't think that is adequate. Many people knew of it. I think that the responsibility was much more widespread.

Neil Salonen: I just want to be careful what I say in response to this. We don't have a simple explanation. It's certainly not as we have sometimes been accused -- payment for the failure to accept Jesus 2,000 years ago, or anything like that. The holocaust occurred because of the total failure of the religious community to take responsibility to respond to the Nazi ideology. Now I haven't done a great deal of thinking about it, so I can't say much more than that at this time.

Francis Botchway: And what about the Soviet Union?

Neil Salonen: Well of course many nations participated in the allied cause, but they were not at that point fulfilling the three primary roles. They were not in that position. At this time we see the split as being between North and South Korea, which is in the position of Adam. We have North Korea, China and the Soviet Union over against South Korea, Japan and the United States. The two archangel nations are the two that really have the power to decide anything in that confrontation.

David Paulsen: Now that we have touched on the subject of the holocaust, I would pose this question to the Unification Church: What enabled the confessing church in Germany in that period to resist Hitler? I think the question is fundamental. That resistance was possible because of their commitment to the lordship, the sole lordship of Jesus Christ. As in the early Church, what enabled the church to stand against the Emperor was the sole lordship of Jesus. That is what I see effectively denied in your theology. You have another lord who in a certain sense is even greater than Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I see this as the fundamental problem. It centers around the question of who do we worship. I think every serious leader claims to be building on a Christian foundation. But the question is who do we worship? Who is this Jesus? Is there another person who is equal or perhaps even in a sense superior to him? And if you say there is, then I think you are effectively denying a basic teaching of the church down through the ages. I think that's extremely serious from a practical point of view, from the point of view of worship, from the point of view of effective protest against people setting themselves up as messiah and saying now I am going to fulfill the mission of Jesus. A couple of thousand people have done this in Judaism and throughout Christian history. Since I pose that question, I think it has to be faced head on.

Neil Salonen: Who do we worship? We worship God. We do not worship Rev. Moon in any sense of the word. And as you know, we don't believe that Jesus was God himself. We believe that Jesus was divine, we believe that Jesus was the son of God, we believe that Jesus was the messiah. Part of the confusion is that people think we teach that the lord of the second advent is somehow disconnected from the position or the accomplishment or the work of Jesus, and that's not true. That's not true at all. So I would say, in response to your suggestion that the only thing that could have saved the confessing church in Nazi Germany and effectively help it to resist is the belief in the sole lordship of Jesus, the absolute sovereignty of God would be a more appropriate answer from our point of view. At each stage in our development of our relationship with God we have a certain connection or we're operating as part of a certain providential stage. But ultimately it's God alone who should be worshipped. And that's absolutely true. I don't think there's anyone here who has been in touch with even our worst critics that would ever suggest that our relationship with Rev. Moon is anything which approximates worship. We worship God.

Tim Miller: What would happen to your eschatology and your second coming theology if Rev. Moon had a cardiac arrest and died, or perhaps was assassinated by bitter people as was Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Neil Salonen: I would think King's is a very different case in a number of ways. But Rev. Moon will die. When he does, what happens will depend on the facts surrounding that event and how much confusion there is in the church at that time. But the fundamental teaching will not change. It's our personal feeling as members of the church that we need his guidance and his insight. Nevertheless, it's also our faith that after him God will continue to work through some channel to continue to guide us in understanding the principle. We're not in a personality cult, but we are hoping for more ideas from Rev. Moon who has greatly illuminated the principle. I think the independence that people often sense in the members of the church comes from the fact that we're all independently trying to deal with the principle, which he has greatly illuminated, but a lot more work needs to be done.

Participant: I really appreciate your straight-forwardness Neil, and I am thankful for it. There is a dual track of the triumphal messiah and the humiliated messiah that runs through the Old Testament. And I am interested in a third theme related to the triumphant track which is that the messiah is the "messiah to judge." It comes when Daniel portrays the one who comes with the power to judge the nations and maintains sovereignty, and so forth. Daniel describes him as the son of man. Jesus frequently uses this title to describe himself in the gospels. He called himself savior less than a dozen times. Every other title that he uses to describe himself is used less than a dozen times except for the title "the son of man." I find it interesting that he describes himself as the son of man seventy-four times in the gospels. I get the feeling that Jesus is somewhat anticipating a sense of judgment to be accomplished through his ministry, even after he recognizes that he's going to die. In Revelation the same figure appears when John sees one who has authority and is granted the power of heaven, and he is described with almost the same metaphorical or graphic understanding that we have in the Daniel figure. He is called "the son of man" in a passage in Revelation, and he's Jesus. How does that fit into what we're talking about here?

Neil Salonen: You mean what do I think about your case that the son of man uniquely applies to Jesus?

Participant: Well, that one aspect of the son-of-man motif is judgment and that Jesus anticipated being able to exercise judgment, even after he knew that he was going to the cross. So I'm wondering if there is a sense of judgment in Jesus' ministry that we haven't heard about yet.

Neil Salonen: In one sense, Jesus has been judging the world through his ministry through the last two thousand years. Judgment to us is the separation of good from evil, which is not a simple thing: but that's actually the work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit -- to bring judgment throughout the last two thousand years of their ministry. I haven't counted as you have the times that Jesus used various titles, but I would say that it's our position that even when Jesus is referring to the "son of man" and referring to his office in other ways, he is not always referring to himself personally. Often he is speaking about the office that he is either fulfilling or seeking to fulfill at that time.

James Deotis Roberts: First I'd like to congratulate you for giving such a wonderful lecture on a new interpretation of history which I find extremely interesting and very helpful. I think it is going to attract a lot of discussion among historians throughout this country. However, I find your interpretation of world history extraordinarily limited. And I have a number of reasons for saying that. First, the whole history of slavery is left out, and everything centers on Western Europe and America. The role of other countries, the end of colonialism, the emergence of the Third World -- these I do not find in the Divine Principle or in Unification Thought, nor were they presented in the lecture today. I wonder why. I would further comment that during the Second World War many Third World countries fought: Africans were sent to war in Asia, Indo-China and Europe to fight against German Nazis, Italian Fascists, and Japanese militarists. Yet in your lecture these contributions are left out. Why did you leave these contributions out?

Western Europe was fighting to free itself from control by Germany. However, France, and Britain were colonial powers who were not seeking to relinquish their colonial possessions. They used their colonies to fight with them in the war. This is a very serious problem with the way the Divine Principle interprets history.

Finally, it looks as though the Divine Principle does not deal with the realities of present day life: the realities of people who are poor today, the roles of large national corporations, the problems of exploitation and hunger. How do these relate to where we are today?

Neil Salonen: I hope I can remember everything. The lecture is not meant to be an explanation of all of World War II. It is meant to provide an understanding of which nations had which providential responsibilities. God's program historically has been that there is no pure and righteous champion, and so one of the greatest difficulties has been that whoever represents God's side has never been a pure and righteous champion. So I'm not able to champion the absolute righteousness of any nation, but just their relative positions of good. Also, although it may not have been their intention to divest themselves of their colonies after World War II, in fact that is what happened, by and large. It was through the experience of World War II that that providence came about and it became possible for more nations to receive their freedom.

Regarding the question of racism. Because the Divine Principle was developed in the Orient among a yellow people, the sensitivity to and awareness of the position of black people and a recognition of the tension between black and white communities is not there. And that's a big gap. We know that it has to be understood. We just expect people to take us at our word that we are concerned about those things, things we have addressed and things we haven't yet addressed. That's why we need your comments. We need these kinds of discussions so that our awareness or even our sense of responsibility can be stimulated in those areas. So I agree with you that there is a gap. I just hope that you can believe that it's not an intentional gap, that it's not a failure of the heart or a lack of concern. It's simply a question of the evolution of the theology.

James Deotis Roberts: I'm very much aware that Korea was brutalized by Japan. I'm very clear and aware of that. What I'm saying is that you should make an effort to include this aspect of life and get some historians to help you. Finally, I think the interpretation we get here is what historians might call a "Western colonial historical interpretation." It's keeping very close to what historians in Britain have done. I think that as a Christian, I may sympathize with the Unification Church. That's why I'm here. We really need new kinds of colonial historical interpretations. Otherwise we are no better off than the other traditional denominations.

Neil Salonen: Thank you very much.