a movement of unification?

When the sociologist, Frederik Sontag, asked Rev Moon:
“I want to know if you see any danger of the church drifting toward becoming just another church among many. What can happen is that people who are establishment-oriented gain control and the empire-ambition begins to dominate.”

Sontag interviewed Rev Moon for 9 and a half hours, with just a few short breaks

…This was his reply:
“This is the fundamental difference between the existing churches and the Unification Church. Ours is not a denomination but a movement of unification. Therefore, this movement will not cease in its revolutionary zeal or its pioneering task until the ultimate goal of establishing the kingdom of God here on earth is physically accomplished and God is able to take great comfort and joy after his six thousand biblical years of suffering.
We really could not become just an institutionalised established church. This is really a movement, and it will not settle down until the movement is no longer necessary.”

The key to being a movement must have something to do with being a place where there is a creative space for ideas and an ongoing conversation about how to make the big vision of the Messiah something that permeates down into the everyday life of ordinary people.

If you are part of the unification movement then you are someone who creatively brings the Divine Principle into the practical reality of their day to day life. If you are part of an institution you wait…and wait, like so many others who exist within institutions (government, religious, business, etc), for something to happen.

the building of a workable vision continues…

Profile photo of simoncooper

About simoncooper

working at 43LG church community in West London

, , , , ,

11 Responses to a movement of unification?

  1. Profile photo of Matthew Huish
    Matthew Huish December 15, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    I’m glad True Father does speak so much – his words will be an eternal reference against which the movement can be continually reoriented, to make sure it’s MOVING in the right direction…

  2. Profile photo of William Haines
    Editor December 15, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    Looks like Sontag was right. The UC has a Sunday service at the same time as other churches have their main service. How then can be a movement of Unification of Christianity (HSAUWC)?

  3. Profile photo of Nigel Barrett
    Nigel Barrett December 16, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    Just who are you critisising William? From the earliest days our church has held services at the same time as other churches. It is not attending another church’s service that brings unity it is meeting, talking and working with them that does that — something which our movement has been very good at. Of course it will have value to sometimes attend another church’s service — not something I have ever found easy to do I have to confess.

  4. Profile photo of Peter Schroder
    peter schroder December 16, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    I feel very much part of a movement as I am literally moving, all the time, with a bicycle that is; rain or snow, thunder or lightening, shine or cloud, distributing True Father’s autobiography. A great adventure it is, all the time! Last Sunday I dropped (our) Sunday Service for it.

  5. Guest December 17, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    @Nigel.
    who says anyone is criticising anyone.
    sontag made the statement that there may be a danger that the UC is percieved to be ‘just another church’ because it goes along with the flow of having service on sunday just like everyone else.
    so in that sense sontag had a point, williams’ comment is valid because if we were a ‘different church’ maybe we would have service on a saturday night. your comment isnt valid.

    stop arguing for the sake of arguing

  6. Profile photo of simoncooper
    Editor December 18, 2010 at 9:01 am #

    just want to encourage people to put their name if possible when leaving comments. It strengthens our case when we put our name to what we say 🙂

  7. Profile photo of Nigel Barrett
    Nigel Barrett December 18, 2010 at 9:38 am #

    Dear Guest, how do you know I am arguing for the sake of arguing? I disagreed with William and you disagreed with me — should only people you agree with be allowed to post here? To answer your question it is my opinion that William was critising the way the church is being run — I responded to that. I also thought that William was not clear exactly who he is critising as it is a long standing tradition that we have held the service at the time we do. I do not know for sure but I get the feeling that William likes to provoke a response — I try not to bite but sometimes I have to. This was such an occassion.

  8. Graham Simon December 24, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    This posting of Simon’s raises an extremely important issue – one that needs to be debated openly, rationally and without prejudice.

    One cannot have force without form. The billion dollar question is whether it is possible to build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth without building an organisation…and, if we do build an organisation, how can we be sure that the organisation will not take on a life of its own, independent of the greater goal?

    When I joined (the Unification Movement? the Unification Church?) nearly 30 years ago and went out to witness, a common comment we encountered was: “I hate organised religions. You only have to look at history to see what they have done in the name of God.” I used to respond, “I agree with you entirely. But Reverend Moon hasn’t come to build a religion. He’s come to end religion. He’s come to build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth by showing people how to reconnect directly with God and live in His direct dominion.”

    In light of the development of the Unfication Movement/Unification Church since then, I think it would be more difficult to use this argument nowadays. Perhaps I was just being naive all those years ago.

  9. Profile photo of Timothy Read
    Timothy Read December 30, 2010 at 10:17 am #

    Hmm. One of the reasons God created religion was to be able to unite with humankind. One of the roles of religion is to enable humans to develop an unconditional parental heart by the time we are mature. Until we have matured and become ‘true’, we will need religion to guide us (and our children). As we have grown up over the past 100’s of thousands of years, religions have also changed form and content to provide deeper insights into our situation so that we can grow up more (which is not to say that immature people haven’t also used them to further their selfish aims). Just as mature people will embrace others less mature than them, so we will also naturally do that. However we are not fully mature yet – therefore we still need a religion (and a religious service for ourselves and for our children too). And to the extent that we are mature the organisation of the church/movement will or will not take on a life of its own, independent of the greater goal. It depends on our maturity.

  10. Graham Simon January 5, 2011 at 1:01 am #

    A religion created by God is not the problem. It’s the ones developed by men that are a cause for concern. It’s a bit of a Catch-22 situation isn’t it? We need religion because we are immature. Yet because we are immature, the potential for us to build an organisation that over time takes on a life of its own is that much more likely.

  11. Profile photo of William Haines
    Editor January 10, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Hi Nigel. I didn’t know I had sparked off another controversy, hence the tardy reply. I wasn’t actually criticising anyone. Just trying to evaluate the discussion between Sontag and Father and see whose predictions seem to have been right so far at least. I was pointing out that Sontag’s ‘prediction’ based presumably on his knowledge of the sociology of religion seems to have come about despite Father’s assertion that it wouldn’t. The UC is pretty much another denomination amongst many – has its own hierarchy, church buildings, services, holy days etc. such that it can hardly IMO be described as a movement as opposed to an institution with its own interests and priorities. As to his predictions about the ‘establishment’ and ’empire builders’, again this is one sociological way of describing what we are seeing now. So, is it possible to buck the trend, to be different to what has gone before, to avoid following the path described by Max Weber without doing what Krishnamurti did?

Leave a Reply