CHRISTOLOGY
This is to fill in the only important gap in my conveyance
to you of Mr. Moon’s theology. From the beginning, I explicated, with the help
of sharp questions from you, his soteriology. This message further explicates
his Christology. It contains an interesting novelty which, in itself, is, like
most of his theology, identifiable as Christian theology, and which might pose
new challenges to high Christologies, particularly as regards the Parousia.
In
The fundamental concept in Unification theology is, of
course, that the core of God is the impulse to give love, which is the motive
for creation and other activities, with God’s relationship with God’s human
creatures being that of parents and children. I described Unification
Christology simply as “low”. Mr. Moon may have learned it in that
unsophisticated form as a child; however, as he developed it, it is not
unsophisticated.
1. Apostle’s
Creed theology stems primarily from Colossians 1, in which Jesus is depicted as
existing before his birth. Mr. Moon, holding that modern-minded humans find
belief in mystery unsatisfying, determined to build a theology without it. His Christology
at its first level is Paul’s argument to Hellenists that God’s deity, namely,
God’s eternal nature and power, is seen in God’s creations. That incarnational statement
is also the basis for Unification theology’s theory of creation. Unification
theology, then, is incarnational, taking off, then, from John 1, declining to
identify the Word with the Word made flesh (entailing the mystery cited above).
Mr. Moon then took John 1 to a logical ultimate conclusion: each creation is an
incarnation of the Word, things manifesting God symbolically, and humans as the
image of God.
2. Then,
what are the differences between Jesus and the human couple from whom all
existing humans are descended, each an incarnation of God’s Word? First, the
couple did not grow to maturity; Jesus did. Second, the couple disobeyed God,
establishing a condition for Lucifer to dominate them (and he did, thus becoming
Satan); Jesus, however, remained faithful to God’s words as revealed in the
Hebrew Scriptures. The originating couple then became the corrupted incarnation
of God’s Word, and their descendants inherited this corrupted condition, in
which God and Satan vie for dominion. Jesus, however, did not, for one reason
or another, inherit this corrupted condition and, furthermore, although
tempted, grew to maturity uncorrupted.
,
3. The
full incarnation of God’s Word is the unbreakable unity of a man and woman,
each incarnating one aspect of the Word. Mr. Moon taught that he and his wife
Mrs. Han were such a couple. Mrs. Han has recently taught that she and Mr. Moon
were each born free from the corrupted inheritance. Now, God surely desires
that all humans form such unions, and acts toward that end, and God’s power of
incarnation is intrinsically unlimited. (A Polish Roman Catholic anti-Thomist
diocesan priest having earned doctorates in theology and in history and
teaching Modern Philosophy in St. John’s’s University in Queens, Sebastian A.
Matczak, who is the author of a scholarly book Unificationism: a new philosophy and worldview told me that
Catholic doctrine does not preclude the possibility of incarnations other than
that of Jesus, but stated that any claim that such had happened would, if taken
seriously, need to be vested by a panel of qualified theologians.) It follows,
especially from Mrs. Han’s claim, that there may have been and/or are and/or
can come to be any number of persons born free of the corrupted inheritance
(and something told to me by Mr. Moon’s first theologically trained disciple
suggests that) and with the possibility of growing purely to maturity and,
accordingly, with the possibility of entering into unbreakable marital unions,
and so able, if they so choose, to convey God’s parental love at whatever
social scope may know of and choose. This suggests a stronger hope for the
future of humanity.
Christology only thus far stated, as distinct from the
soteriology with which it is mingled in Unificationist textbooks, would enable
Mr. Moon’s movement to be considered just another low-Christology social gospel
Christian denomination. It became a
foundation for, but did not necessarily entail, Mr. Moon’s further novelty,
which, I assume you realized (although too polite to directly say so) denotes
the Moons’ movement as, instead, an entirely new religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment