Unity In Diversity - Essays in religion by members of the faculty of the Unification Theological Seminary - Edited by Henry O. Thompson - 1984
The subtitle does not contain a typographical error. There is not one Israel in Divine Principle (hereafter Divine Principle). There are three. This essay is primarily concerned with the first. A major concern is whether Divine Principle is anti-Semitic, in the traditional sense of anti-Judaism.
The references to the first Israel cluster in two main areas: the historic Hebrew-Jewish people from Abraham to Ezra, and, the Jewish people in the time of Jesus of Nazareth. The people are called "The Chosen People" in both periods, in the Divine Principle. They began with Abraham. He was both successful and a failure. He failed ritually and symbolically in the way he offered the sacrifice in Genesis 15. He cut part of the offering in half but not the dove. In his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, however, Abraham succeeded, according to the Divine Principle. He laid the foundation for his family to become the channel for God's redemptive activity.
Divine Principle claims Abraham's successful accomplishment continued with Isaac, who was willing to be sacrificed; with Jacob who victoriously wrestled with the angel and was reconciled with his brother Esau; with Joseph and later with Moses. The Bible says Moses also failed. For this disobedience, he was not allowed to enter the Promised Land. However, the Divine Principle indicates he faithfully laid the Foundation of Faith. According to the Bible, the people under Moses failed by worshipping the Golden Calf and by accepting the majority report of the spies. The latter said they could not conquer the land of Canaan. For their faithlessness, most of this generation was condemned to the Wilderness Wandering. However, the next generation entered Canaan.
In the Divine Principle, the story of the Hebrew people continues with the failure of Saul and the kings and priests of Israel. Yet, according to Divine Principle, the Chosen People and their leaders in each era had the option of obedience. Their faithfulness would have set the stage for the Messianic Age and the Redemption of the world. Even at that, they did set the stage for the Messiah, though imperfectly. Their obedience in the Exile, and subsequently in the reform of Ezra, prepared the way for Jesus.
A listing of the Israelite failures noted in Divine Principle has led some to accuse Divine Principle of being anti-Semitic.
Anti-Semitism itself is something of a problem while the charge is even more so. Anti-Semitism has many faces.2 At times, the faces are so many that one could despair of being anything but anti-Semitic. There is a danger here, represented by Jaroslav Pelikan3 as he talks about dialogue:
The trouble with most fad words is not only that they obscure the meaning of language and serve as a substitute for thought, but also that they articulate inadequately a need that is deeply felt; this is, indeed why they become fads.
For example, at various times in American history, it has been fashionable to label "Communist" anyone with whom you disagreed. A neighbor did not like college students parking in front of her house. "Obviously" she said, "they are all Commies." The red-baiting of the 1920's in the United States, and the McCarthyism of the 1950's, is seen by some as a smear on our national honor. Others point out that the hysteria hid the very real danger which Communism is to the free world.
Thus it seems to me that words like "Communist" and "anti-Semite" should not be used casually or indiscriminately, without clear and careful thought.
In my view, anti-Semitism is one of the most vicious aberrations in history. It is totally counter to the essence of democracy, human decency, and the Judeo-Christian tradition. To label someone anti-Semitic is a serious charge indeed. Glazer politely says it thus: "... the way Jews are treated is an important index -- sometimes the chief index -- of a country's spirit of freedom and good will... Thomas G. Masaryk of Czechoslovakia, put it: A nation's attitude toward Jews is the measure of its cultural maturity'."4 To put it another way, anti-Semitism is a measure of a society's health. The presence of anti-Semitism represents sickness in a society's soul, a fatal flaw in its being. Unless this illness is cured, even the most technologically advanced nation will slide into the darkness of barbarism, as Nazi Germany so horribly illustrated.
Introducing The New Anti-Semitism, Seymour Groubard notes that this is "in the larger sense, a book about the wrongs people do people in the twentieth century... We hope it will prod the reader into awareness of what is hurting his neighbor, his country -- and, ultimately, himself."5
I write with the awareness that what hurts my neighbor, sooner or later, hurts me.6 Martin Niemoeller explained:
In Germany the Nazis first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic (I was a Protestant). Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.
So I write out of vital personal concern rather than mere academic curiosity.
But I also write with this awareness: "Challenging another's faith goes against the American grain and the First Amendment."7 It is too easy to slip back into the pre-American Europe of the Thirty Years War or the Crusades where religions were busily trying to destroy each other. The pluralism of America requires that all religions be free to believe. There have been too many examples where this was not true. Anti-Semitism is but one of these examples. It and all other "anti-isms" such as the discrimination experienced by Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and others, as well as racism and sexism, are all blights on democracy.8
One temptation in facing these blights is to "fight fire with fire." There may be some value in that but it also perpetuates the very evil with which one is supposedly concerned. It also violates an old tradition illustrated by Rabbi Hillel: "Do not do unto others that which is hurtful to thyself."9 Further, if we continue doing what we accuse others of doing, we may simply project onto others our own fears, anger and sin, instead of constructively solving problems. An alternative is to seek understanding rather than subjugation, openness rather than oppression, dialogue rather than the trading of accusations.
Iris Cully's words are meaningful in the midst of such uncertainty:
...it is the provincial mind that wants to close debate, keep ideas circumscribed by a prescribed fence, ultimately have everyone subjected to a 'standard,' which very often turns out to be one person's prejudice, or even a rationalized commercial objective.10
Commenting on The Myth of God Incarnate,11 Trevor Beeson notes:
There seems to be plenty of material here for useful debate, and it is to be hoped that those who are afraid of the authors' approaches or who disagree with their conclusions will keep their heads sufficiently to enable a constructive discussion to take place. There are few signs of such dialogue at the moment...12
When asked for his support in burning Jewish books and eliminating Jews, Erasmus suggested they all read the Jewish books and then sit down and have a discussion with Jewish scholars and learn something. Abraham J. Heschel notes the:
clash of doctrines is not a disaster but an opportunity... The world is too small for anything but mutual care and deep respect; the world is too great for anything but responsibility for one another.13
This is good advice for anti-Semites, anti-Unificationists, the ACM. With these preliminary remarks, let us take a closer look at the issues.
In December 76, the AJC published a report, "Jews and Judaism in Rev. Moon's Divine Principle."14 The report claims that the Divine Principle shows unrelieved hostility to the Jews. It is pejorative, stereotyped, and accuses the Jews of collective sin and guilt. It describes them as reprobates. Their intentions are seen as evil (often diabolical). Their religious mission is eclipsed.15 The report does not refer to the faithfulness Divine Principle ascribes to Hebrews and Jews. Rabbi Rudin is upset because the DP describes the Israelites of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) as faithless.16 In similar fashion, Divine Principle refers to the attitude of the Jews towards Jesus as hostile.17 Rudin objects to the Divine Principle statement:
As a matter of tact, Satan confronted Jesus, working through the Jewish people, centering on the chief priests and scribes who had fallen faithless, and especially through Judas Iscariot, the disciple who had betrayed Jesus. Nevertheless, due to the Jewish people's rebellion against him, the physical body of Jesus was delivered into the hands of Satan as the condition of ransom tor the restoration of the Jews and the whole of mankind back to God's bosom; his body was invaded by Satan.18
Rudin sees the anti-Jewish thrust continuing into our own time. These references in Divine Principle he claims are viciously anti-Jewish, the worst of traditional Christian displacement, viewing the persecution of Jews as punishment for sins.
God's heritage (has been) taken away from the Jewish people.
Israel has been punished for the sin of rejecting Jesus and crucifying Him.
Jesus came as the Messiah; but due to the disbelief of and persecution by the people he was crucified. Since then the Jews have lost their qualification as the chosen people and have been scattered, suffering persecution through the present day.
Rudin is concerned that there is only one mention of the Nazi Holocaust.
Hitler imposed the strict primitive Germanic religious ideology by concluding a pact with the Pope of Rome, thus founding a national religion, and then tried to control all Protestantism under the supervision of bishops throughout the country. Therefore, the Catholics as well as the Protestants were strongly opposed to Hitler. Furthermore, Hitler massacred six million Jews.19
Rudin goes on to sketch the history of Christian anti-Semitism, acknowledging that Unification Church teachings have their parallels. However, he notes that in recent years, Protestants and Roman Catholics have repudiated anti-Semitism. Among other examples, he quotes the Presbyterian Church in the United States as saying: "We can never lay exclusive claim to being God's people as though we have replaced those to whom the covenant, the law and the promises belong. We affirm that God has not rejected His people, the Jews. The Lord does not take back His promises." Rabbi Rudin neglects to note that the Divine Principle was developed prior to 1954 and that all the Catholic and Protestant statements to which he refers have only been made in recent years. He ends his pronouncement with the observation: "One can only speculate on what negative and anti-Jewish impact Divine Principle may have upon a follower of Rev. Moon." This is of course not true since one does not need to speculate at all. One could talk with these followers and ask how they feel. Of the 3,000 Unificationists, fewer than 200 are of Jewish background, including the current president of the Unification Church in America. Several of these have been asked. They claim the Unification Church and Divine Principle have deepened their appreciation of their Jewish heritage, a thought echoed by Unificationists of other backgrounds. Obviously we need some dialogue here in the spirit of Erasmus, Cully, Beeson and Abraham Heschel.20 To repeat Cully's observation, it is the provincial mind that closes debate often for prejudices of the person's own or even for a rationalized commercial objective.
Rudin's report notes another report, then in preparation, by a committee of the Faith and Order Commission of the National Council of Churches. The report has since been published.21
Under presuppositions, the CFO report notes the responsibility of Christians and Jews for the restoration of fallen humanity.22 It quotes Divine Principle: "the history of the Israelite nation is the central focus of the providential history of restoration."
That is a high status for Israelites but the committee report does not focus on the high esteem. It goes on to quote Divine Principle statements on Israelite faithlessness and that Christians who fail to acknowledge the Lord of the Second Advent will be like the Jews who failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The Committee claimed to be concerned with anti-Semitism. They claim a recurrent emphasis in Divine Principle on the responsibility of the Jews for the failure of the mission of Jesus. They say the attitude expressed toward the Jews is consistently and unrelievedly negative though on p. 6 they acknowledge the positive appreciation of Jews. They see D P as condemnation of an entire people which results in an inevitable anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism, of course, is what their denominations have been, and continue, practicing. They admit that in the past, Christians have been anti-Semitic. That is not completely gone but is openly regretted by Christians, they claim. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not helped by any discrimination, whether of race, color, creed, sex or economic status. Apparently discrimination against the Unification Church is alright. They claim that the anti-Semitism of Divine Principle is incompatible with a real Christian teaching and practice. They fail to note that most of their own constituency is part of this anti-Semitism and that it is present and on-going. The AJC has noted this and has also accused the entire NC C of anti-Semitism but has promised to continue dialogue anyway23
The following advertisement24 was published in The New York Times, 19 December '76:
On September 18, 1976, at our God Bless America Festival at the Washington Monument, in the presence of 300,000 people, we stated:
"Judaism, Christianity and the Unification Movement are indeed three brothers in the Providence of God. Then, Israel, the United States and Korea, the nations where these three religions are based must also be brothers. Because these three nations have a common destiny representing God's side, the Communist bloc as Satan's representative is trying to isolate and destroy them at the U.N.
Therefore these three brother nations must join hands in a unified effort to restore the United Nations to its original purpose and function. They must contribute internally to the unification of world religions and externally to the unification of the world itself."
(Cf. our advertisement in The New York Times, Sept. 24, 1976)
And yet, in spite of this clear and explicit statement, we were attacked repeatedly and accused of anti-Semitism. Our views were distorted, our struggle, its meaning and objectives misrepresented.
On the occasion of these Hanukkah Days, the Festival of Light and commemoration of your victory over the forces of darkness and evil, we wish to clarify our genuine convictions and express our honest and sincere feelings toward you, Jewish Brethren.
Towards this end and purpose we publish herewith and bring to your attention the document signed on August 10, 1976.
In the course of their history the people of Israel and Korea have experienced suffering and persecutions by neighboring enemies and expanding imperialistic powers.
As a son of the Korean people, living in this blessed by God land of America, I extend to you, Jewish Brethren, my hand of friendship and wish to state the principles which are guiding the activities of our Movement, especially those regarding the problems and difficulties confronting the Jews of the World and Israel at this crucial juncture of our common human history.
1. The Unification Movement categorically condemns anti-Semitism, the most hideous, abject and cruel form of hatred. We regard the murder of six million Jews in Europe the result of political short-sightedness and lack of moral responsibility on the part of Germany's political and religious leaders, and statesmen from among other nations, in the period between the Two World Wars. Ignoring the basic teachings of the Scriptures, they acted too late to block Hitler's ascent to power, they postponed the action for his downfall, and they did nothing to rescue the victims who were the captives of his satanic plans and designs. Only a unified front of all Christian and Jewish forces, inspired by the principles of the Divine Commandments and guided by the concept of human brotherhood, would have been able to prevent the Holocaust, the implementation of the "Final Solution," -- a Cam-inspired action, carried out by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945.
2. The Unification Movement recognizes the divine and natural right of the Jewish people to physical survival and preservation of its specific religious traditions, the marks of its distinctive historical entity. These fundamental human rights must be secured everywhere, especially for Jews living in the lands of the Diaspora.
3. The Unification Movement regards the Land of Israel as a haven for the Holocaust survivors and sanctuary for all those individual Jews who are trying to escape physical persecution and religious, racial or national oppression. The demand for free emigration -- the undeniable and inalienable right of every human being -- must become the stated policy of the United States in her dealings with foreign countries, and particularly in her relations with the Soviet Union.
4. The Unification Movement, in its efforts to resolve conflicts among nations and harmonize antagonistic social-economic and political interests, will work toward the creation of political conditions necessary for an acceptable accommodation between the Arabs and Jews, and to achieve a genuine and lasting peace in the Middle East, one of the most important corners of the world.
5. The Unification Movement believes that religious and free people throughout the world must cooperate in building a spiritual and organizational unity among nations which will be capable to contain Soviet imperialism, which continues to inflict hardship and suffering upon its own people and is spreading the poison of hatred and dissension among nations of the world, with the ultimate purpose of political global subjugation and enslavement.
6. The Unification Movement is grateful to God, to His true and righteous prophets and saints of our common spiritual tradition who prepared the foundations on which we stand and organize our struggle. We consider ourselves to be the younger brother of our Jewish and Christian brethren, all of whom are children of our Heavenly Father. We regard it as our duty to respect and serve the elder sons of our Father, and it is our mission to serve Judaism and Christianity by promoting Love and Unity among all the children of God.
7. The Unification Movement teaches the Principle and strives toward the establishment of a Unified World Family of Nations guided by the concepts of Unity and Brotherhood expressed in the Divine Commandments, the foundations of our common spiritual heritage. It is our conviction that we must unite in order to attain this Divine and Sublime Historical Objective.
Reverend Sun Myung Moon
New York December,
1976 Hanukkah, Kislev 5737
Responding to this, Rabbi Tanenbaum commented:
We trust that the Rev. Moon's declaration... will result in concrete actions that will demonstrate that he means what he professes. A comprehensive and systematic removal of negative and hostile references to Jews and Judaism which abound in his Divine Principle, the basic teachings of the Unification Movement, would be one such demonstration that his statements are serious and are made in good faith and are not simply public relations pieties.
The NY Times quoted him as saying Rev. Moon's statement "represented only 'public relations pieties'." Rabbi Tanenbaum went on to say "that all major Christian bodies... from Vatican Council II to the World and National Council of Churches to Dr. Billy Graham to the Southern Baptist Convention -- have unambiguously repudiated these anti-Jewish canards." In the light of this "we call upon Rev. Moon not to be guilty of planting these poisonous weeds which so many faithful people have labored for decades to uproot." He added that the American Jewish Committee was also concerned about proselytizing, reputed mind-conditioning methods of indoctrination, and what appeared to be justification of oppressive regimes.25
Rabbi Tanenbaum's response is in one sense confusing. Rev. Moon published to all the world his condemnation of anti-Semitism and his support for the state of Israel (in contrast to the NCC), and Rabbi Tanenbaum calls upon Rev. Moon to repudiate anti-Semitism. If I say anti-Semitism is bad and then someone turns around and demands that I say anti-Semitism is bad, either this someone has not heard me, or something else is happening. It is perhaps then in this second sense that Rabbi Tanenbaum's remarks are to be understood.
In 1963, Bernard E. Olson published his epoch-making study of anti-Semitism in Protestant texts and teaching materials.26 Since then, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) as well as several groups have issued statements favorable or even friendly to Jews and Judaism. Some of these area bit curious. "In Catholic Spain -- stronghold of the Inquisition for three centuries -- a pamphlet issued over the imprimatur of the Bishop of Madrid asserts: 'In no way can a Christian reproach the entire Jewish people for the assassination of Christ.'" At first glance this Roman statement seems positive, but what it really says is that some Jews, though not all, can be reproached for the assassination of Christ. Fortunately the booklet is entitled "We the Jews" and talks about "the God-chosen people." It was, of course, the Romans who executed the historical Jesus, and thousands of other Jews as well.27
This is quoted in an article titled, "The Christian War on Anti-Semitism." The article is dated 1964, the year after Olson's publication. The tone of the article is optimistic. "We're on our way... Not a war so much against anti-Semitism as for freedom -- freedom to live in the kind of world Pope Paul prayed for in the Holy Land, a world of 'true, profound concord among all men and all peoples.' "28 Olson, himself, writing the following year, was a bit less optimistic.29 "The purification of the Gospel is going to take some time!"
Common sense agrees. Anti-Semitism has been built up and carried on by Christian churches for centuries. It's not apt to disappear in a decade. Gerald Strober's study suggests it has by no means disappeared.30 His study was not as extensive as Olson's and concentrated on anti-Semitism in a selection of denominational educational materials. He found a few slight improvements and many of the old problems still present. The one outstanding change for the better was an example from the Missouri Synod Lutheran material.31 Since this Protestant denomination is not otherwise noted for its liberalism, we are reminded here that the problem of anti-Semitism cuts across the traditional liberal-conservative spectrum.
It is appalling to point out that the people being quoted in 1964 in the war on anti-Semitism and in Olson's 1965 treatment of "a lively skeleton," belonged to denominations that Strober's 1972 studies show as continuing to have an inaccurate portrait of the elder brother. These are people in power, in key positions (curriculum editors for example) in Protestant and Roman Catholic hierarchies, the very groups publicly repudiating anti-Semitism. Some of these groups belong to the NCC, apparently overlooked by the CFO committee. In the decade following Olson's monumental study pointing out what they were doing to prejudice children's minds against Jews and Judaism, these key people and their religious groups made relatively little progress in presenting a more accurate portrait. Rabbi Tanenbaum has good reason for wanting to see concrete results. After many years of pious statements, concrete results appear to be few and far between. Strober noted in 1972 that while the various groups had made their statements or resolutions, "none of the denominations surveyed has even one staff member devoting full time to Christian-Jewish relations, and neither has the National Council of Churches."32
This leads me to the observation that the CFO might want to take very seriously a suggestion Rabbi Tanenbaum makes regarding Christian efforts to evangelize Jews. He defends the fundamental right that we have, "to proclaim one's truth in the marketplace of ideas." That includes the right to seek converts to one's cause. Presumably, that right belongs to the Unification Church as well. But then he notes: Given the self-evident fact that there are millions of baptized Christians whose association with Christianity is nominal, and the uncounted others who are Gentiles and/or domestic heathens, it would seem that evangelical fervor and money would be far more rationally and legitimately employed in converting Christians to Christianity than in the relatively fruitless proselytization of Jews, with its consequent affront to the dignity of Judaism and its potential for serious intergroup discord.33 According to a study by Rabbi Allen Mailer, those converts cost $3,000 to $4,000 per capita and amount to only a few hundred a year in contrast to the seven or eight thousand Christians who convert to Judaism every year, for tree.34
Not only does this suggest (to me at least) that the CFO might want to try spending its time with its own constituency to deal with Protestant anti-Semitism.35 It suggests that proselytizing is a bigger problem for the AJC than the official statements suggest. Tanenbaum's foreword to the above quoted report says, "It has been estimated that nearly thirty percent of the Moonies today are Jewish young men and women..." Rabbi Rudin is quoted elsewhere as suggesting a figure of 10%. The Unification Church says it is 5.3%.36 We are talking about less than 200 people. There are over 7 million Jews in America. The figures are less important than the concern, a concern that also appears in relation to "Jews for Jesus" (most of whom are Jews), The American Board of Missions to the Jews, Hare Krishna (12% Jews), and other such groups. Still, one wonders why the protest is aimed at the U C while there is no objection to Jews becoming witches (11% -- 3,000-4,000 Jews), Muslim Sufis (15%) or Zen Buddhists (25%).37 Why is the protest aimed at a group with only 5-6% Jews but groups with 2-5 times as many Jewish converts receive no press conferences, and little or no criticism?
The very title of the Rudins' article suggests that they (and others too) feel the threat is greater than Rabbi Allen Mailer's study concludes. The writers note there are an estimated 60 groups of Hebrew Christians trying to convert Jews. They note that "...irate public responses by Jewish and Christian leaders to Hebrew Christian publicity tactics have unwittingly given them free and extensive exposure." A similar thought echoes in "The Many Faces of Anti-Semitism": "Anti-Semitic propagandists still burst into the headlines from time to time. What is the best way to deal with them? Attempts to silence them only transform them into martyrs for free speech. And running debates actually help them by providing the publicity they thrive on. But it is not incumbent on the community to provide them with a platform... the best answer, wherever possible, is... the 'silent treatment'."38 One wonders about this policy in relation to the Unification Movement. One wonders why they continue to publicize the Unification Church. It seems doubtful they would do it on purpose to aid the growth of the Unification Church; still, perhaps the Unification Church can be appreciative of the free publicity.
It is perhaps wise to put in a reminder here of Judaism's own proselytizing efforts. These have been low key over the centuries. In the time of Jesus, they were widespread and very active. The New Testament reflects this in several places (Matthew 23:15, Acts 2:10, 6:5, 13:43). The Proselytes of Righteousness were those who were circumcised and observed the law of Moses. The Proselytes of the Gate (Exodus 20:10), were not bound by circumcision. These God fearers were attracted to Christianity in some numbers, perhaps because circumcision was not required. Christianity was a Jewish sect. Jesus and all his early followers were Jews. He said he came only to the house of Israel (Mt. 15:24). But after his death, the Christian movement spread out to include Gentiles as well. As a sect of Judaism, Christianity grew well in the seedbed so well prepared by earlier Jews.39
Non-Christian Jewish proselytism may have slowed because of the inroads of Christian proselytism. The former certainly declined alter Christianity came to power and laws were passed against it. As Christians had already found when these were used against themselves, one rather effective way to slow a missionary movement is by murdering both proselytes and those who attempt to proselytize. That it was a violation of everything Jesus taught didn't seem to bother them. It also violated Rabbi Hillel's teaching. But Jewish proselytes/proselytism has never stopped completely in these nineteen centuries, as Rabbi Mailer's study testifies for the present day. Reform Judaism has announced resumption of active public proselytism.
It is appropriate here to note Rabbi Rudin's analysis of the threat of Rev. Moon's proselytism.40 Rudin claims people do not join the Unification Church for its theology or politics. Rather the Unification Church is able to give its followers a "sense of belonging, warmth and community." This is an interesting comment. Most of us need this. He goes on to say it is "a new family run by a rigid code of standards." Young people "tumble for the companionship, the appreciation, the sense of belonging -- and the rigidly clean living -- of a cult like the 'Moonies'."41 "Black and Hispanic young people are usually too busy trying to 'make it' in society to have the leisure for getting involved with the Moon group..." Thus "most of Moon's followers are white, middle class, educated young people who are looking for a 'sense of warmth and security' " Personally I think we need more clean living, warmth and love rather than less. But Rudin says they are alienated and disaffected young people who are vulnerable because they do not have a deep faith on the one hand, while on the other hand they "find in the authoritarian figure of the Rev. Moon a father image to direct them toward a more emotional, spiritual life." "And joining the group gives kids a chance to kick their parents very hard -- and get a new parent, Rev. Moon... And they don't have to do it alone. It's very convenient and very warm." "The Unification Church," Rabbi Rudin said, "offers the best and the brightest young people a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose. They are taught they have natural parents who bring them into the world, but Rev. Moon is their true parent." However, "This is not child's play. People act out their theology. It sometimes takes political and social action," Rabbi Rudin said, calling the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews such an example. From a Muslim perspective of course, Jews act out their theology. Some Muslims believe the Jews are planning to exterminate the Arabs.
Elsewhere, Rabbi Tanenbaum notes, "The troubling question cannot be evaded: why are Rev. Moon and his political backers resorting to the Nazi model of exploiting anti-Semitism for ideological purposes?" He feels that "the American people must be alerted to the emergence of the Moon phenomenon of an ideological campaign whose antecedents trace back to the Nazis and to Stalinist Communism. Those totalitarian movements consciously and cynically employed anti-Jewish hatred as a major vehicle for realizing their apocalyptic goal of undermining the Biblical and democratic values of Western civilization."42 Both Rudin and Tanenbaum extended their criticism to an alleged involvement of the Unification Church with the Korean CIA and called for Congressional investigation of this.43
Rabbi Rudin is well aware of the challenge all this presents to traditional Judaism and Christianity. It says the traditional groups are cold and insecure. It seems to me that similar things are being said about white, middle class families, both Christian and Jewish. In other words, the question of warmth and belonging, a sense of purpose, a deepening of faith -- all this is a judgment upon present structures. Rather than condemning Rev. Moon and the Unification Church for responding to these human needs, organized religion might rather commend him for it, and if they wish, seek ways to go and do likewise. Rabbi Rudin strongly urges synagogues and churches to do the latter.44 What is not clear is why the Unification Church should be condemned for doing this -- for showing the love which the rest of us are supposed to be showing to one another. Nor is it clear why Rudin's and Judaism's love should not include the UC. The Hebrew Scriptures urge Jews to love their neighbors.
Rabbi Rudin makes an unexamined assumption in saying the appeal of the Unification Church is only psychological. My own contacts with Unificationists suggest that while they appreciate and practice the loving warmth cited above, many of them genuinely believe the Divine Principle is true. Joseph Fichter, the Roman Catholic sociologist, says the overwhelming majority of the people who join new religions do so freely because it makes sense to them. While the secularist is embarrassed by the concept of a personal relationship with God, others find that it gives meaning and purpose to the rest of life. Even without that meaning and purpose, the encounter is an end in itself.45
One might note that there are those triumphalists in both Jewish and Christian circles who insist their religion is doctrinally superior and who will continue missionary efforts. But I suspect they will find less and less support for their position. What many people have not realized over the centuries of missionary activity is that Jews and Christians have been disrupting families all over the world whenever they converted an individual. This is especially true in cultures with close-knit family structures as in India and China. Exceptions might be places like Borneo where whole villages have converted, or the Indian pastor who told me that when an individual came for conversion, he or she was instructed to go back and bring their family with them into their new faith. But perhaps now that some American families have experienced the upset of having someone join a new tradition, they will be even less willing to support the proselytizing of the missionary enterprise than presently.
It needs to be noted that organized religion may be fighting the times. Rev. Moon, then, may be just the scapegoat for the frustration these groups feel in the face of the paradox Rabbi Tanenbaum describes in the study cited earlier.45A He notes that humanity is both more unified and more fragmented. On the one hand, we live in a global village. On the other hand, the "globalization of the human consciousness has led to the undermining of dependencies on the more limited local loyalties, such as the nation-state." "By and large we do not dominate the structures (of society), rather they control us." "In the pursuit of personal meaning, there is a desire for wholeness, and for clarity about one's identity. It is no accident that there has emerged in recent years such a spontaneous growth of youth communes, encounter and human potential movements." He quotes Anton C. Zijderveld: "... societal control is no longer characterized by a family-like authority but dominated by bureaucratic neutrality and unresponsiveness. The individual often seems to be doomed to endure this situation passively, since the structures of society vanish in abstract air if he tries to grasp their very forces of control. No wonder that many seek refuge in one or another form of retreat... As a result, many modern men are turning away from the institutions of society and are searching for meaning, reality and freedom elsewhere."46 The Unification Church, of course, offers a "family-like authority" within the context of a global organization, one of many parallels with Roman Catholicism. Why the Unification Church should be condemned for responding to this human need is not clear.
Rudin emphasizes that legislation is not the answer. "I'm very fearful of a government agency defining for me what is religion." He adds that violating civil liberties (kidnapping and deprogramming) is not the answer either. The answer, as noted above, is for synagogues and churches to educate people in the context of a warm, accepting, genuinely caring community. This is commendable, from my perspective of civil liberties. His call then for congressional investigations is an aberration from this stated position, as are legal attempts to repress the UC. Unfortunately, his aberrant call, and the accusations of Nazism and Communism relate to the larger issue of discrimination and prejudice.47
Anti-Semitic literature abounds with such accusations. While accusing Jews of being Nazis and Communists, anti-Semitic literature also accuses Jews of loyalty to a foreign power, world Jewry, the state of Israel. The loyalty issue is an old one used against Jews. One could see it in Exodus 1:10. They were suspect in Rome because of the 'revolts' in 66-70 and 132-135 A.D. Jews have proven over and over again that they are loyal citizens.
The loyalty issue was used against Catholics in Reformation England. It was not settled until the Spanish Armada attacked in 1588. English Catholics fought loyally for Protestant England against Catholic Spain. That issue remains in this country and effectively helped block a Roman Catholic from the presidency until John F. Kennedy. The first Methodists were accused of being spies for the French against Mother England. Jesus was executed as a political figure, according to some Christian and Jewish interpreters. Christians have often been accused of disloyalty -- by the Romans (it was an illegal religion) and by communist and third world countries. The latter know full well that when the missionaries arrived they had the Bible while the local people had the land. In short order, the local people had the Bible and...
Ina recent lecture on the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Dr. James Penton noted:
As a prominent "come outer" church, at times even militantly depicting government, economics and existing churches as evil, Dr. Penton characterized the Jehovah's Witnesses as persecuted more than any other group outside of the Jews. Difficulties with flag saluting (idolatry for JW's) and their refusal to serve in WW I precipitated brutal reprisals in the United States during the 1920's according to Dr. Penton. The first organization banned under Hitler in Germany, many Jehovah's Witnesses were sent to their death in concentration camps during WW II. Most recently, Jehovah's Witnesses have suffered miserably in communist countries where, in Dr. Penton's words, "they hate us like poison."48
The loyalty issue is not the only one used in the anti-movements. The power issue mentioned above is common. Anti-Catholicism sees Catholics gaining power to deal with heretic Protestants and for financial advantage, all of it on behalf of the Pope. Anti-Semitic literature frequently hints ominously at powerful Jewish interests who control the press and the government.49 Orthodox Jews have believed the world will someday submit, voluntarily or otherwise, to a messianic dictatorship in Jerusalem. A recent publication referred to "the American Jewish Committee and other powerful Jewish groups..."50 It was an early charge against Christianity. Those who insist that we take the power issue seriously point out the explicit statements the various groups make regarding their worldwide interests. These include Old Testament statements about all nations coming to Zion, New Testament statements about overcoming the world, Israeli statements that all Jews everywhere are citizens of Israel, the labor movement's call for workers of the world to unite, as well as the more well-known communist slogans, Nazi slogans, British Imperialism, the United States' Manifest Destiny, and other movements of yesteryear and today. All this is not to say that loyalty issues and power issues are to be ignored. The world did that to its sorrow with Hitler. But such a common accusation might be taken with a grain of salt.
One extension of the political power issue is the question of economic power. Rev. Moon is accused of having a very high tax-free income, derived mainly from exploited members of the Movement. The source of the "information" is not given. In this connection, his personal lifestyle is attacked as being unseemly for a religious leader. The Pope, of course, has been accused of this for centuries. I assume the income of the Roman Catholic Church is high. I do not know what it is, nor do I know anyone else who knows. Jews are commonly accused of being wealthy. It will be a surprise to some to find that one of the main problems in American Jewry is helping the Jewish poor. I find people unwilling to believe there is such a problem. Sociological surveys indicate that Jews have the highest income in the U.S., with Catholics second and Episcopalians third.51
A controversy arose over the Billy Graham organization. A newspaper investigation revealed a $23 million fund which the paper said had not been previously revealed. The Graham organization denied secrecy but the Council of Better Business Bureaus noted that the Graham organization had never submitted to their willingness to audit it, along with 10,000 other non-profit groups the Bureau audits. The Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association is another Protestant group the Bureau had not been able to audit.52
The Mormons are said to have an income of $1 billion a year. The Mormon Church was once reviled and persecuted but has become one of the most respectable of U S. religions. Its members include highly placed figures in the political, business and entertainment worlds.53
A report noted church and synagogue income in America to be $11 billion in a year when three major sports grossed only $221 million. The report says that in the '60's, church construction exceeded a billion dollars a year. A minister wrote to his congregation, urging their concern for the ill-housed of the nation. He wrote from an air-conditioned office in a church costing several million dollars.54
If Rev. Moon or the Unification Movement has money, this would not appear to be all that different from other religious groups except that the others have a great deal more.
We can note here, also, Tanenbaum's concern with reputed brainwashing and Rudin's fear that "they're out to get our kids." This reflects yet another ancient problem. Pogroms against the Jews were started on the pretext that a lost child had been taken by Jews. Christians are reported to have taken Jewish children and forcibly baptized them. Cardinal Newman said, "Give me a child until he's 8 and he'll be a Catholic for life." My mail includes an appeal for funds from a Protestant group for the evangelization of grammar school children, especially Catholics and Jews, with no protest from the AJC. Various other groups, such as gypsies, from time to time are also accused of being "out to get our children."55 One should note that the "children" in the Unification Movement are old enough to vote. Their average age is reported to be 28. The group includes older people such as the 80 year old woman converted at age 78. But the point here is that once again an anti-Semitic charge against the Jews has been diverted to the Unification Church.
In addition to the issues of loyalty, power, money and children, the "out-group" is accused of being liars (especially common against Jews, Jesuits and Japanese). It comes as no surprise that the same charge is leveled against the Unification Church. Sexual aberration is another common theme. Both reputed excessive sexuality and abstinence are a source of condemnation. One excuse for imposing the ghetto on the Jews was Christian fear of Jewish sexuality. This also appears in hate literature against Blacks, Mormons, Catholic priests, Japanese, and others.56 These traditional charges are now diverted to the Unification Church.
Thus, the accusations that the Unification Church is anti-Semitic and non-Christian are set in a wider context. An insurance advertisement referred to the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton and his monotheism.57 After Akhenaton's "death, the 'good old days' of multiple gods returned and it was left to the Hebrews, Christians and Moslems to develop this concept. Akhenaton was obviously a man born too soon, about 1400 years too soon." Whether Moses was a monotheist or not is debated in scholarly circles. Many scholars admit there was definitely monotheism by the sixth century B.C. To imply that monotheism did not arrive until Jesus can be taken as anti-Semitism. It denigrates the achievement of pre-Jesus Hebrews and Jews in the 1400 years between Akhenaton and Jesus.
"Six United Methodist executives have urged President Carter to consider applying human rights criteria to foreign aid to Israel, based on reports of torture of Arab prisoners there.... The report... charged that torture has been regularly used against Palestinians during the 10 years of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, to pacify the population and obtain information....The UM. executives declared that 'despite the denials by the Israeli government, the fact remains that no open and independent inquiry into the matter has been permitted'." Is this anti-Semitism? Some say yes.58 It should be noted that American Jews historically have been largely on the side of civil rights, a position Rabbi Rudin affirms for himself. It should be noted also that Israeli civil libertarians have also protested their government's actions. It will be recalled that Rev. Moon has stated unequivocally that he supports the state of Israel.
"The Unification Movement regards the Land of Israel as a haven for the survivors and a sanctuary for all those individual Jews who are trying to escape physical persecution and religious, racial or national oppression."59 It's an odd twist, if the above is true, that physical persecution and oppression has now fallen on the Arabs. At any rate, Rudin noted, "the sole mention of the Nazi Holocaust" in Divine Principle. He adds, "Moreover, the Holocaust, when one-third of the Jewish people was murdered by the Nazis, is gratuitously mentioned by Rev. Moon, and nowhere in Divine Principle do we find any calls for repentance or for self-examination in the face of six million dead. The United Methodist Church (UMC), in a 1972 statement, expressed 'clear repentance and a resolve to repudiate past injustice and to seek its elimination in the present. But not Rev. Moon."60 But the UM C is one of those cited in Strober's study as continuing to have anti-Semitic elements in its educational material for little children and the UMC sided with the NCC in claiming human rights for Arabs, along with Israel's right to exist, which is anti-Semitism according to the AJC.
In his "The ambiguity of vision," Clyde A. Holbrook notes that without vision, the people perish. But "with certain kinds of visions the people do in fact perish... (for example) the vision of Hitler, with his chatter of Lebensraum, blood and soil, and a solution to the Jewish problem. That was a vision which engulfed most of the so-called civilized world in its horror. Millions died because of that vision."61 Some 29 million died from 1933-1945, according to the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.62 The six million Jews were slaughtered because they were Jews. The gypsies were slaughtered because they were gypsies. The mentally ill and physically handicapped were slaughtered because they were. The slaughter of Jehovah's Witnesses was mentioned earlier. The incredible evil of Hitler and the Holocaust cannot be overemphasized. Is Rev. Moon anti-Semitic for slighting the Holocaust?
Rev. Moon did not in fact slight the Holocaust in his 18 December 1976 statement. Whether Divine Principle should be expected to show similar sensitivity is highly questionable. It originated prior to 1954, being supposedly a compendium of, or a systematic presentation of, the thought of Rev. Moon, as compiled by Eu Hyo Won, one of his disciples.63 At that time, the persecution and murder of Christians by Japanese and Communist occupation forces was a major, recent and present issue. It is hardly surprising that the torture and murder of Korean Christians gets more space than the Holocaust. But it is not simply that this volume originated prior to 1954, before the Holocaust became popular. It's that great numbers of Christian works do not deal adequately with the Holocaust, even since 1954. Even numbers of Jewish works are silent or inadequate on the Holocaust. Are these all guilty of anti-Semitism?
The Eisenberg article cited above was published in 1964, ten years after Divine Principle. The authors quote Augustin Cardinal Bea as saying, "It would be impossible for the Council to be quiet after the holocaust of the war years. Six million people cannot be wiped out and the Church be silent." This of course was 20 years after the Holocaust and 23 million other dead are not even gratuitously mentioned! The same article noted that "Many U.S. Catholics eagerly await a directive." Why wait for over 20 years? This is not to downgrade Catholic reaction to the Holocaust or Catholic efforts on how to relate to the Jews. It's to emphasize that the new climate of Christian detente or rapport with Judaism is largely a post-World War II phenomenon, even though it has pre-war roots. And it is largely since 1960 that many of the statements heralding a new day have been produced. Holocaust theology is a "Johnny come lately." Perhaps it has to be that way. It has taken time to contemplate and absorb the monumental evil, let alone to make an adequate response, which still has not been made. An adequate response may be simply impossible.64
Many of Ulrich Simon's relatives died in concentration camps. His father died in Auschwitz. He himself got out of Germany in 1933. In England, he became a priest. His book, A Theology of Auschwitz (Atlanta: John Knox Press) was not published until 1967. He notes the need is not felt by all. He talks about it as "facts which the human eye finds too repulsive to see and which the mind cannot fathom." He found no answer for the deep destructive force which wills its own and everyone else's enslavement. Borowitz claims that American Jews did not come to terms with the Holocaust until 1967-1973. Sophie K. Black has only now come to terms with it (1981). She and her family got out of Germany eleven days after "Kristallnacht."
If Jews and Christians who have experienced the Holocaust first hand need so much time to come up with "no answer," it seems absurd and even bizarre to expect Koreans in 1954, fresh out of a Communist torture camp and only a few years out from under the Japanese yoke, to deal adequately with the Holocaust only nine years afterwards. In fact, it is amazing that Divine Principle mentions the Holocaust at all. Borowitz says American Jews knew what was going on and silently accepted the decision of Allied leaders to do nothing when something might have been done to prevent, slow or stop it. Perhaps Rudin's real quarrel is with American Jews. They, we, are currently allowing Ethiopian Jews to die like flies, according to news reports. Israel, the supposed refuge for survivors of the Nazi death camps, will not let these Falashas, who are Black, enter Israel in any significant numbers. The Holocaust of 50 years ago is trivialized while the genocide of today is ignored.
Of course, it is a commonplace of ethnocentrism that we expect others to be supersensitive about our concerns while we are totally insensitive to others. That's probably one reason Rabbi Hillel found it necessary to say, "Do not do unto others that which is hurtful to yourself." "Do you know what hurts me?" Now we all need to practice Hillel's wide ethical standard. We might begin by allowing the Falashas to enter Israel and the US.64A
We can of course still honestly ask if Moon's statement is sufficient. The Rudins quote, "Arthur Robins, 22, a Jewish former 'Moonie,' (who) says he was taught that Hitler had to kill six million Jews as 'indemnity' because they did not accept Jesus as the Christ. Robins ominously warns, 'Moon is building an army, not a church.'"65 The concept is hardly novel. Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address reflected the idea that "the Civil War was a divine judgment intended to purge the nation of slavery."66 Both Christians and Jewish leaders have suggested the Holocaust was punishment for the sins of the Jews.67 These leaders have not been condemned for anti-Semitism.
I have problems with all of these concepts. They reflect a concept of God which appears in the Bible, both Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Personally, I find the idea of God as one who slaughters millions of people, an abhorrent concept whether we are considering the Genesis Flood, Hebrew wars, the final Revelation, or for that matter "The War Between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness" (the Dead Sea Scrolls), the Crusades, or the War to make the World Safe for Democracy (World War I). That it is a common Christian and Jewish concept does not make it any more palatable. On the other hand, I'm not sure my own concept of the evil of mankind is any more adequate, and, apart from the free action of the laws of nature, my concept of "evil" in nature and the death and loss from natural disasters is even less adequate. I'm not sure an adequate Holocaust theology is possible, though it has stimulated much thought and writing.68
On the other hand, I see Rev. Moon's unequivocable statement on the Holocaust and its victims as a major sensitization. If Robins presents an accurate picture of what happens within the Unification Movement, the Movement has its work cut out for it, for it has not yet caught up with its leader's opinion. While not questioning Robins' veracity, I'm aware that I would not go to an anti-Semite, or to the anti-Semitic hate literature, for an accurate understanding of Judaism. If we rely on anti-Semites to give us an accurate picture of Judaism, Jews could justifiably question our motives. Relying on ex-Moonies and anti-Semites may produce more hate literature but it will not give honest understanding.
In the meanwhile, both Christians and Jews need a deeper sensitivity to the Holocaust and to the larger issue of genocide. While the Bible does indeed contain the concept of "cherem," the ban, the total destruction (holocaust) of people (Joshua 6:17; I Samuel 15:3), I believe that this denies and contradicts the fundamental basis of the Judeo-Christian tradition which says, "Do not do unto others that which is hurtful to thyself," and "love thy neighbor as thyself." For example, the genocide which has been historically practiced against the American Indian, should call forth a "clear repentance and a resolve to repudiate past injustice and to seek its elimination in the present." We should be concerned about this murderous discrimination whether it is practiced against Jews, Indians, Blacks, Arabs, Latvians, Tibetans, Vietnamese, Armenians, or Moonies.
The indemnity theme is also objectionable to Jorge Lara-Braud. In the preliminary release of the CFO paper, he noted that "Divine Principle contains a legalistic theology of indemnity in which grace and forgiveness play little part. The central figures of providence tail even when they are not believed -- a vicarious failure is certainly not central to Christian affirmation. That is, Christ failed because the Jews did not believe in him, and put him to death. That is double indemnity indeed, and its penalties are continuing anti-Semitism and the requirement that another savior come to complete the salvation of Jesus Christ."69 S. Mark Heim believes that the Principle's "whole scheme of history is built around the concept of 'indemnity' -- that is, around humanity's struggle to fulfill its portion of reparation for the Fall. The debt humanity owes God cannot be paid in full. But if an individual can, through complete devotion, discharge 5 per cent of his or her portion of the debt, God will wipe out the rest." He goes on to claim the two world wars, including the Holocaust, to be a necessary part of "God's plan for restoration" according to the Principle.70
Heim's analysis suggests there is a rather considerable amount of grace involved in the Principle's scheme of restoration. The ransom theory is an old interpretation of the crucifixion (Matt. 20:8; Mark 10:45; I Tim. 2:6). Regarding our human efforts, Lara-Braud's spiritual ancestors, the Scotch Presbyterians, worked as though everything depended on them while they prayed as though everything depended on God. This is a rather neat solution to the paradox. But the point is that indemnity is an old problem in Christian theology. We are called to work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). According to Protestant interpretations, Catholicism was sunk in works of righteousness, of which indulgences were only a part. Protestantism itself has not avoided the problem. The Puritan work ethic may be seen as part of this issue. A major concept in Judaism has been the long held belief that if Jews everywhere were to obey God completely for only one day, the Messiah would come. Classical Jewish tradition demands man exert himself to the full even while relying on God for the final fulfillment.71 A major strand of biblical thought is that suffering is the result of sin (John 9:2). The call for repentance by the Hebrew prophets and in the New Testament and throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition, has often carried the corollary that sin brings destruction (Num. 16). Where present sin does not seem adequate to explain the suffering, it is often ascribed to the parents or ancestors of the sufferer (Ex. 20:50, John 9:2). That includes collective guilt for sin, a biblical concept that has also been carried into the present day. Scores of examples are at hand. WASPS, Jews, Blacks, Catholics, Hispanics, and many others have been accused of collective guilt. Both ancestral guilt and collective guilt were already being called into question by Ezekiel (18:20) as well as in the Johannine (9:2) literature. Yet it is common knowledge that the Israelis have taken actions against families and whole villages in their attempts to stem what they call terrorism. Arab reprisals indiscriminately kill and maim Israeli civilians and military, little children and tourists. It was commonplace a short time ago for at least some Americans to say that the only good Indian is a dead one. Europeans came to this area, stole Indian land, and then slaughtered the Indians when the Indians objected. Double indemnity indeed. The whole sorry record is certainly inhuman and reflects man's inhumanity to man.72 If those condemning the Unification Church for double indemnity are actually opposed to double indemnity, they have many examples to deal with, including their own constituency. I wish them well but suggest they clean up their own house as Tanenbaum suggests Christians begin their proselytizing by first converting their own people.
The use of the collective is very common in literature (which of course does not make it right). It often violates the niceties of historical accuracies. Writing on "The Living Faith of Judaism," Roman Catholic scholar John B. Sheerin recognizes that "the church began as a Jewish religious group. Early Christians thought of themselves as true Jews but did not want to be identified with the Pharisees, the Sadducees or some other Jewish group. Eventually they ran into difficulty because they admitted Gentiles into their ranks without requiring them to observe Jewish laws. The other Jews feared that this nonobservance would dilute or corrupt Judaism." The result was mutual hostilities.73
We don't really know whether observance was any more strict then than now. Probably only a minority were observant, then as now. To treat non-Christian Jews as a block is historically questionable.
The Jewish scholar Geza Vermes does the same in explaining why the Gentile Church retained the title of Christ.74 It was for polemical value in fighting the Jews who refused "en bloc" to be impressed by the messianic claims of Christianity. Yet he himself notes that the disciples were all Jewish. The truth is, we do not have accurate records of how many Jews accepted those messianic claims. Some did, some did not. Keep in mind that only a minority of Jews even lived in Palestine. The Diaspora had been under way for over 600 years. Without mass media or TV only a minority of the minority even knew Jesus existed.75 At what point in the ensuing centuries would a majority of non-Christian Jews have come to know of Jesus' existence? Even then, or now, there is no "en bloc" in Judaism or Christianity, either one! There never has been and I doubt there ever will be. The "en bloc" is another myth that Cox might well add to his deep structures of religious persecution.
A similar problem appears in David Singer's study in which he notes that "throughout this whole period, needless to say, Jews have steadfastly rejected Christianity's Messianic claim."76 As an historical absolute, this is inaccurate. One could similarly question his, "Jews, therefore, have no other choice but to reject the Christological Jesus." At least some Jews have thought otherwise. Some (perhaps many/most) Christians do also.77 They reject Singer's Christological (divine) Jesus and see Jesus as a quite human teacher, with or without messianic status. Christologically speaking, liberal Christians and liberal Jews have much in common. But the point here is that "The Jews" is almost always an historically inaccurate designation, for neither Christian Jews (spiritual Semites if you will, to quote Pius XII's 1938 statement 78) nor non-Christian Jews (whether Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, atheist, agnostic, secular, or something else) are an "en bloc," a monolithic entity, and never have been.
Historically speaking, "The Jews" did not, and do not reject Jesus. To say it is historically inaccurate, whether the person saying it is Jewish or Christian or neither. If this historically inaccurate statement is anti-Semitism, then that charge is laid against some Jews as well as some Christians. It is laid against the New Testament as well as Divine Principle, and parenthetically it must be said again that the Tenak or the Old Testament has numerous statements on the failure of Israel. If accusing the ancient Hebrews of failure is anti-Semitism, then the Hebrew Scriptures are anti-Semitic. Now there may be some value in labeling so many anti-Semitic, but I wonder. It is, of course, instructive to keep in mind.79
The World Council of Churches urged its member churches to resist anti-Semitism. "In Christian teaching, the historic events which led to the Crucifixion should not be so presented as to fasten upon the Jewish people of today responsibilities which belong to our corporate humanity and not to one race or community. Jews were the first to accept Jesus, and Jews are not the only ones who do not yet recognize him."80
Speaking at Madison Square Garden on Sept. 18, 1974, Rev. Moon noted that Jesus came to his own people. "Then what happened? History is the witness. We did not know him. We rejected him, rebelled against him and finally crucified him on the cross... It was in ignorance that we crucified Jesus Christ. It was God's will that His people accept the Messiah. But we crucified him instead. And then Christians 'passed the buck' by saying that was the will of God."81
In my view, this kind of historicizing is an appropriate way to interpret Scripture. The prophets denounced the sins of the first Israel. These sins have a striking similarity to the sins of the second Israel. Instead of using the prophets for anti-Semitic purposes, it is appropriate to appropriate their message for our time. This is in fact what Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospellers have done.82
In ascribing the crucifixion to us, Rev. Moon stands in that tradition. This understanding of history goes back to the Hebrew Scriptures themselves where over and over again, the word is that such and such did not happen to our fathers who came out of Egypt, but to us. Rev. Moon is quite biblical.
Early in the Christian tradition, Christian interpreters understood themselves to be the new Chosen People, the new or the second Israel. Divine Principle focuses on Christianity, the second Israel, in two major areas -- the historical period from Jesus to the modern era, and the present. The historical period parallels the Abraham to Ezra period of the first Israel. The second Israel also suffered persecution. The second Israel also had the option of obedience and faithfulness, says Divine Principle. The second Israel also 'blew it,' especially in the medieval period. Kings and priests and other leaders have tailed in the second Israel as in the first. Incidentally Jesus failed, as had Abraham, Moses and John the Baptist. Jesus' failure differed from theirs in that he did not do something rebellious, according to Divine Principle. Rather, his failure was caused by John the Baptist (in some passages) or the Jewish people (in other passages). The result of Jesus' failure was that his resurrection brings spiritual salvation but not physical or material salvation.83 This has been the Christian message for 2,000 years. Anyone who says the physical world is already saved has obviously not been out in the world.
Today, Divine Principle says we have come to the time of the Second Coming or the Age of the Lord of the Second Advent. The Principle contends that the Lord of the Second Advent will come as the first one did. The first one is Jesus. He did not come on Clouds of Heaven. He was born in human form. The Lord of the Second Advent will also be born in human form. The Lord of the First Advent was rejected by the first Israel. The Lord of the Second Advent will be rejected by the second Israel. This paves the way for the advent of the third Israel, identified with the Korean people. This time there will be no failure, for God is determined that His will shall be fulfilled.84
Virtually nothing is said in Divine Principle about the continuance of the first Israel since the time of Jesus.85 Christian theologians have wrestled with this question for centuries. Divine Principle doesn't deal with it directly. Similarly, virtually nothing is said about the continuance of the second Israel after the arrival of the Lord of the Second Advent. What is said, is that God wants all of His children to be saved (II Peter 3:9). This takes in the first and second Israels, the rest of mankind, and even the devil.
If all people are to be saved, what's the purpose or the role or function of the Israels of mankind? They are or were to be channels of God's saving grace. Salvation is not only the spiritual brought by the faithfulness of Jesus, on the foundation of Jewish faithfulness. It is also material. So through the Third Israel and the Lord of the Second Advent, God will bring His Kingdom on earth. The physical and material world will also be saved.
Earlier, and continuing coterminous with Israel's failure, is the failure of all mankind. Divine Principle presents the Fall of Man and the entrance of Satan into human existence as the interpretive focus of the Bible, and of all human enterprise -- philosophy, history, politics, science. There is strong agreement here with a major segment of Christianity, including Lara-Braud's Presbytenanism. If the interpretive concept here is considered 'anti-', it is anti-humanity rather than anti-Semitic. Divine Principle however, insists that man has the capacity to obey God, an insistence in agreement with a major segment of Judaic thought as well as a mainstream of Christian thought (Pelagius, Arminius, Wesley). Some Presbyterians stand in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition that man is incapable of obeying God... condemned to sin and condemned because he sins. Double indemnity? As noted earlier, Divine Principle also states that God has predestined all to be saved, in contrast to Presbyterian or Calvinist doctrines which claim God has predestined (many or most?) people to be damned.
My own orientation to Christianity does not emphasize The Fall. I note in passing that neither the Hebrew Scriptures nor Judaism emphasizes this doctrine. It might be called an invention of Christianity except for the uncertain authorship of such works as "The Life of Adam and Eve."86 But even here, with this doctrine, we are concerned with some Christians rather than all of them. The Fall has received much more emphasis from the tradition of Augustine and Calvin than from Pelagius and Arminius. Through Methodism, I stand closer to the latter tradition within Christianity. I suspect that Rev. Moon stands closer to the former through his Presbyterian antecedents, Jorge Lara-Braud's antecedents as well.
In this paper, the origins of Rev. Moon's thought or of the ideas expounded in Divine Principle are of concern only as they relate to the Israels of the Principle. However, the concern with The Fall, it seems to me, influences the subsequent interpretation of biblical data. It brings an emphasis on failure, for example. In a way, this is a logical outgrowth of the millennialism represented by Rev. Moon's concern with the End time at hand. One can explain the arrival of the End at this time by reviewing the failure of all previous history, including the first and second Israels. And indeed, while not myself a follower of Rev. Moon, I can see where one could objectively ask, if either the first or the second Israels had been obedient and faithful, would not the world be in better condition? Maybe it's time for a third Israel... Note, however, that Unificationism itself is positive. The failure is humanity's -- the glory is God's. He will restore his creation. Unificationists believe in a better world tomorrow. That better world will include all three Israels and not just some people but all humanity.86A
There are two other issues that must be dealt with. One is the question of whether Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic. In some places, Rev. Moon claims to be Christian. If all Christians are anti-Semitic, he presumably is, too. If all Christian groups are anti-Semitic, and if the Unification Church is Christian, then it presumably is anti-Semitic. The CFO committee said the Unification Church was non-Christian. If this be true, it and its parent NCC are anti-Semitic while the Unification Church is not! In her book, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism,87 Rosemary Ruether claims that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic. It is in the very soul of Christianity and one cannot say Jesus is Messiah without implicitly or explicitly also saying "and the Jews be damned." I noted earlier that anti-Semitism in a society means that that society is suffering from a sick soul. If Ruether is right, Christianity is really sick, perhaps what the Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard called a sickness unto death.
Others suggest that "the source of Christian anti-Judaism, is not Christian thinking per se, but the political purposes to which it is put. Doctrinal formulation (or reformulation) will not end anti-Judaism, much less anti-Semitism. History shows both to be complex phenomena which depend heavily on political, social and economic factors, as well as the intellectual and theological developments which give expression to them."88
Both studies point to the New Testament as part of the problem. This collection has been labeled anti-Semitic on other occasions. A segment of the issue turns on the Gospel of John. Christians have long been guilty of using John and other portions of the New Testament for anti-Semitic purposes. This is a misuse of the New Testament. In my view, however, if the anti-Semites did not have the New Testament to quote, they would have quoted something else, as they have invented other rationalizations for their activity. There's abundant evidence for this in pogroms and in Nazi ideology.
The New Testament is a collection of Jewish writings on and by a branch of Judaism. When John or others refer to "the Jews" not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, we are dealing with a family fight. The authors are Jews talking to other Jews. So too Markus Barth in his Jesus the Jew. The phenomenon is well known in ethnic history. The commonest example is the Americans who damn the foreigners coming into the United States. Historically, all Americans are foreigners, i.e., immigrants. Historically, all the early Christians were Jews. So "the Jews" in the New Testament are actually "other" Jews who have not joined the Jewish movement which was later called Christianity. This is quite clear in the writings of Paul, who emphasizes his own Jewishness. However, he wanted so much that his people, "the Jews," should accept his brand of Judaism, i.e., Christianity, that he was willing to be damned himself, if that would help swing the vote. Some Jews had accepted Christianity while most of the Jews did not know it existed. But Paul's attitude contrasts strongly with the Jews of Qumran who, as noted earlier, planned to exterminate all other Jews and all Gentiles in the War Between the Sons of Light (them) and the Sons of Darkness (others). If the Qumran sectarians had won instead of the Jesus sectarians, there would only be Qumranites. The entire human race would be killed except for them.
Olson notes that at first all the Christians were Jews. Then they expanded to include God fearers. The third expansion was to Gentiles. The last brought in pre-Christian and anti-Christian antipathy toward the Jews. Olson's scheme may be a bit too neat, since history doesn't usually function so succinctly. But he is "right on" when he says: "The Hebraic prophets, among them the apostles, spoke self-critically as Jews to fellow Jews. The Gentile Christians misused these strictures as anti- Jewish polemic in the same way that they twisted Jesus' dispute with the Pharisees. As Jocz puts it, the internal conflicts within Judaism were externalized as conflicts between Jews and Gentiles."89
Idinopulos and Ward, among others, see the development of anti-Semitism as coming especially after 70 A. D., when it was politically expedient for Christians to distinguish themselves from other Jews. One thrust of this argument is that if anti-Semitism is historically conditioned (e.g., by power politics), it can change. If it is endemic, Christianity can only avoid anti-Semitism by committing "hari-kiri." Some indeed see this as the honorable thing to do, though it is not likely to happen. It would not, of course, make anti-Semitism disappear.90
Speaking of origins, it is worth noting that contempt for others is not limited to Christian writers. The Greeks thought all others to be barbarians. There's a Jewish tradition about waking up and thanking God you were not born a "Goy" (that's all the rest of us), a slave (some versions say "a dog"), or a woman (that's half of humanity).91 The Judeans looked with contempt upon the Galileans.92 "Glossolalia is the road to senility and loss of reason," may be one man's opinion alright. Putting it in print may represent contempt for 60 million charismatics.93
Even the newspapers seemed surprised by the viperous attack on the Unification Church by Catholics, Protestants and Jews.94 It has been observed that "eclesiastics have always had a certain penchant for vitriolic language... Fortunately latitudinarian views have accompanied the birth of the ecumenical movement... and heresy hunting has been increasingly confined to the ignorant, the bigoted and the backward remnant of the clergy. By and large the motto has become: 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things charity' What else would be appropriate for a religion whose..." core is love? Jesus has been "accused of being an antichrist, an immoralist and a blasphemer."95 His People the Jews likewise. His People the Unificationists likewise. How sad.
Nationalities, races, tribes, families, and individuals have been holders of and recipients of, contempt. Perhaps it's endemic in humanity. But to believe that would lead me to have contempt for humanity, so I decline. As the song in "South Pacific" put it, "you have to be carefully taught to hate." Scientific studies show that "prejudice, like any social attitude, is learned."96 Like contemporary Jews, I tend to be an optimist in regard to human nature.97
Rev. Moon describes the Unification Movement as the younger brother of Christianity and Judaism. This has led some to call him arrogant for assuming his movement of 30 years is equal to one of 2,000 and another of 4,000 years of age. Others have noted the curious twist that this self-identification makes the Unification Church non-Christian, or at least something other than Christian. This is supported by the description in Divine Principle of the three Israels with Korea (not curiously enough, the Unification Movement) as the third Israel. Self-identification, of course, is an old problem. Jews continue to struggle with the issue of who is a Jew.98
The Christian struggle in recent decades has been muted. One implication of the CFO document is that the CFO determines who is Christian, and the Unification movement falls short. It would have been convenient to have such a body around these last 2,000 years and thus to have avoided the murderous infighting of the ecumenical councils, the wars, the Inquisitions, heresy trials, the Reformation, and so forth. Of course, those who have struggled against such authorities over the centuries will decline the convenience.99
The concept of "brother" is widespread. The Strober work cited earlier is titled, Portrait of an Elder Brother. The elder brother of course is Judaism Those who know the story of the prodigal son, will remember the elder brother as stiff-necked and unforgiving, which is not my experience with Jews. Ruether's title also implies brotherhood. "We are siblings," says Episcopalian Lawrence M. Coombe.100 So Rev. Moon is not alone in this concept. I was taught that both Christianity and Judaism grew out of an earlier Hebrew religion, so the two groups are indeed siblings of one mother. There is some historical accuracy in this if one sees Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity as the two forms of Judaism to survive the devastations of 70 and 135 A.D. My alternative is to see Judaism as the mother and Christianity as the daughter. The Freudian use of the Electra complex thus becomes a useful way of understanding anti-Semitism. The daughter wishes to possess the father (God) and thus must displace the mother. Since the mother declines to go away and die, the daughter's wishes become murderous.101
The analogy fails of course, because God is a spirit and not a sexual partner. Because he (or she) is spirit, Jews, Christians, or anyone else can worship him. That, of course, includes the followers of Rev. Moon.
The Divine Principle sees mankind's failures predominating over humanity's successes. But now the end is at hand. The millennium is here and with it God's Restoration of the original Paradisical bliss of Eden, which God intended all along for us, His children. What's more, this time, there will be no failure. And what's more, all God's children will be saved.
I deeply appreciate this messianic vision and fervently hope the final apocalypse will be the symbolic one Rev. Moon describes rather than a physical Armageddon which he recognizes as possible. As we await this blessed (I hope) event, there are two writers who speak to our condition. One is Marc Tanenbaum. He notes that:
... a vast yearning for human-size communities in which the individual can relate to another person... face-to-face... in an environment of caring, shared concern and mutual confirmation...102 Never before in human history... have Judaism and Christianity had an opportunity such as the present one to translate their Biblical theologies of Creation -- and the unity of mankind under the fatherhood of God -- into actual experience... the Biblical theology of redemption contributed to a messianic conception of history, which conditioned Biblical man to responsibility for the events of history...103 Thus a primary issue on the agenda of the human family is helping build a united human community that respects diversity and difference as a permanent good, quite clearly as a God-given good... The second priority concern... (is) the role of religious educators in helping our people to create and experience genuine community... The conscious efforts to restore an appreciation of the sacred and the transcendent in the lives of individuals and communities in the face of dehumanizing bureaucracies104 might well become one of the most important tasks of religious education... (We) must delve...into the core questions of existence. There we confront the mystery of existence, of the marvel of the earth and mankind calling to new modes of selfhood with integrity, and of fellowship with compassion. Within this limited terrestrial enterprise, we sometimes glimpse and feel the all-embracing mystery.105
Rabbi Tanenbaum notes further that:
... if Jews and Christians want to consider seriously their mutual relationships, it is not sufficient that they declare generalized sentiments of reciprocal regard. Genuine caring between groups, as between individuals, presupposes a willingness to enter into the life situation of the other, and to be present with concern and support at the moment when the other person or group is hurting.106 As human beings, Christians and Jews share a universal agenda... They are both concerned about eliminating wars and establishing peace; about overcoming racial injustices and ending the scourges of poverty, illiteracy, and disease; about ecology and preserving the quality of life about nation-building and economic development in the Third World about closing the gap between the "have" and the "have-not" nations... about reordering our national priorities... The "Judeo-Christian" value system... orients Jews and Christians in a special, distinctive way toward the universe... The biblical ground of these monotheistic faiths unite their adherents in a theology of creation which affirms the unity of the human family under the sovereignty of a transcendent Creator-God; a shared reverence for the prophets of Israel who require justice and righteousness and therefore impose an obligation of respect for the dignity of every person and of building a society based on caring and compassion." Why? To the end "that all the people of the earth may know that the Lord is God, and that there is none else." (I Kings 8:60) 107
The second person is Dr. Young Oon Kim, Unificationist theologian. Speaking to the students of the Unification Theological Seminary, she said:
First, let me emphasize the crucial importance of seminary training as an intellectual disciple... Having said this, I must insist on something even more important. I want you to have an epoch-making experience in your life meeting the living God face-to-face, a heart-warming experience of the truth of Divine Principle. (Note that "The divine principle is the principle of creation. Creation is the reality of existence and its movement toward perfection.")108 This kind of experience will be the fountain for a passionate desire to share God's love and truth with others... Only through spiritual development based on direct confrontation with God and only through your magnetic personal quality can you get your "heart strangely warmed" and keep it warm... The eagerness to help others, a genuine concern for people, a sensitivity to others' needs and a readiness to serve others -- these are the ingredients which create a magnetic personality. All these are derived from one's deep experience with God and passionate love for Him. If you really feel what Schweitzer calls "reverence for life" and if you have a burning desire to love others, you will have discovered the secret of radiant living.109
It would seem that a Jewish theologian and a Unification theologian have the same aims, goals and purposes. They might sit down and discuss them. They might find they have more in common, more on which they agree, than on which they disagree. One of the things on which they agree is the evil of anti-Semitism. They also agree on the evil of denigrating the religious faith of another.110 Do not do unto others that which is hurtful to thyself, said Rabbi Hillel. Rabbi Tanenbaum surely does not want to do unto others that which is hurtful to himself111 Let the dialogue begin...
The following have been abbreviated in the text:
ACM -- Anti-Cult Movement, also known as the Anti-Religion Movement
B&S -- David G. Bromley and Anson D. Shupe. The Moonies in America. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979.
CC -- Christian Century
CFO -- Commission on Faith and Order
CHE -- Chronicle of Higher Education
Divine Principle -- Divine Principle
IB -- Interpreter's Bible
IDB -- Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
LCMS -- Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod
NB -- Jacob Needleman and George Baker, eds. Understanding the New Religions. NY: The Seabury Press, 1978.
NCC -- National Council of Churches of Christ in America
S&B -- Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and David C. Bromley. The New Vigilantes: Deprogrammers, Anti-Cultists, and the New Religions. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980.
UC -- Unification Church
UMC -- United Methodist Church
UMR -- United Methodist Reporter
WSI -- Bryant Wilson, ed. The Social Impact of New Religious Movements. NY: Rose of Sharon Press, 1981.
1. The references here are to the Second Edition (1973) of Divine Principle in English translation. It is published by the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, commonly known as the Unification Church (hereafter Unification Church). The Unification Church was founded in 1954 by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The movement and Divine Principle stem from a revelation in 1936 in which Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him to finish his (Jesus') work on earth, and Rev. Moon's subsequent thought and experience. Divine Principle was compiled by a disciple, Eu Hyo Won and extensively revised by, among others, Dr. "Young Oon Kim. It is currently being revised again. While Divine Principle might be said to represent Rev. Moon's thought or the core of the revelation, the book is not literally his words though it might have been closer to being that in the original Korean language in which it was compiled.
2. The Many Faces of Anti-Semitism (NY: The American Jewish Committee, 1967).
3. Foreword, p. 5, Gerald S. Strober, Portrait of the Elder Brother, NY: AJC and the National Conference of Christians and Jews, 1972. Jacques Barzun once referred to the vogue words that almost always mean nothing but a temporary vacancy of the mind. On "patterns of excess" and the resulting faulty reasoning, cf. Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, "Some Current Mythologies and World Community," Theology Digest 19 (Winter 71), 325-333.
4. The Many Faces..., p. 6. I would personally prefer to state this: "The way the powerless are treated..." whether the powerless are Jews or goyim, European or Asian, Black or White, etc. The last comment on anti-Semites is from T W. Adorno, et. al., The Authoritarian Personality (NY: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 2. Applied to our present study, this hypothesis says the clue to anti-Unificationism is in the anti-Moonies rather than the Unificationists. On p. 42, the Adorno text refers to an anti-Semitic ideology. His subject spoke of Jews as if they were all alike and they are to assimilate but the subject won't accept them if they do. Unificationists are described as look-alike robots. When they try to be like others, they are accused of trying to legitimize the Unification Church. The Adorno study (p. 971) comments on the contempt the authoritarian personality has for whatever is relegated to the bottom. Contempt is a common attitude of the anti-Moonies.
5. Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein, The New Anti-Semitism (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1974), p. xii. It is often the powerless who are wronged and hurt. My neighbors include Jews, Unificationists and many others. I would prefer that none be hurt.
6. Marc H. Tanenbaum, "Do You Know What Hurts Me?," Event (Feb 72), 4-8. Maurice Ogden's poem, "Hangman" makes the same point: "First the alien, then the Jew...I did no more than you let me do." Lest the reader consider this old hat, take note that a liberal American theological seminary had a debate in 1982 (not 1942). The issue was whether we should support the civil rights of those with who m we disagree theologically. Niemoller's attitude is still with us and Roger Williams' fight for religious freedom must continue.
7. Abe D. Jones, Jr., "Cults hold lesson for religious faiths," The Greensboro Record, 12 Feb "77, A5. This is not a unanimous opinion. A friend claims that Americans love to challenge one another's faith. The history of persecution because of one's religion runs from Roger Williams to this morning's newspaper. This suggests many challenges to other people's faith. "Religious Persecution in America" by Dems Collins, 22 Feb '82, unpublished.
8. Lincoln said a nation cannot exist half slave and half free. Justice Learned Hand said, "To keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shall not ration justice."
9. This silver or golden rule has been called the bedrock of ethics, the minimum of human, social, Christian and Jewish ethics. So many fail to live up to this simple standard that one is tempted to say people live under the bedrock, as ethical troglodytes, ethical cavemen. Anti-Semitism is an example of this. So is the anti-cult movement (ACM) described by S&B cf., also Bromley and Shupe, Strange Gods; Boston: Beacon Press, 1981.
10. "Sparks of Contact," The New Review of Books and Religion I, No. 9 (May 77), p. 2.
11. The Myth of God Incarnate, ed. John Hicks (London: SC, 1977).
12. "Debating the Incarnation," CC, XCIV No. 27 (31 Aug-7 Sept 77), 740-742.
13. Foreword, p. vii, James W Parkes, Prelude to Dialogue (NY: Schocken Boob, 1969).
14. Copies are available from the AJC. The foreword is by Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, Director of National Inter-religious Affairs for the AJC. Rabbi Tanenbaum notes the report is the first systematic study of Divine Principle. The report is by Rabbi A. James Rudin, Assistant Director of the Inter-religious Affairs Department.
15. Such charges are fairly standard practice in the internecine warfare of religion. It is said that Jews talk this way about Christians. George W Buchanan, Revelation and Redemption: Jewish Documents of Deliverance tom the Fall of Jerusalem To The Death of Nahmaides; Dillsboro, N.C,: Western North Carolina Press, 1978. The ACM sees the Unification Church as diabolic and charges the Unification Church with sundry related charges -- the standard myths of religious persecutors throughout the ages. Cf. Harvey Cox, "Deep Structures in the Study of New Religions," pp. 122-130, in NB. These stagnant myths are used to accuse the Jews, all new and different groups, and now the Unification Church. We might note too among numerous examples, that Jehovah's Witnesses' literature often refers to "Christendom" as belonging to the devil. Rabbi James S. Diamond suggests the modem state of Israel "may have as much demonic as it has redemptive potential." "Making Sense Out of Israel," CC, XCVII, No. 39 (3 Dec '80), pp. 1205-1206. No doubt there are Arabs who would agree that Israel is demonic. See further later.
16. As noted earlier, Divine Principle also emphasizes Israelite success. Any reader familiar with the Tenak, the Old Testament, will of course recognize the origin of the faithlessness theme. It is all there in the Bible and the Divine Principle is quoting the Jewish Scriptures. Divine Principle notes a similar record of failure and success for Christianity. It is of interest to note that the language of Divine Principle is quite mild compared to that of the biblical prophets who called the Hebrews whores and rotten fruit whom God would wipe off the face of the earth with only the tag of an ear and a bit of fur left to show his sheep ever existed. Andrew C. Tunyogi, The Rebellion of Israel (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1969), p. 11, points out that from the time of her election, Israel repeatedly rebelled against God. There is no parallel like it in any other religion. Compare also George W Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament (NY: Abingdon Press, 1968). If talk about the failures of biblical Hebrews is anti-Semitism, then the biblical prophets were anti-Semites, and the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish Bible, is anti-Semitic. And presumably the Presbyterians and Methodists are anti-Semitic for publishing the books cited. Cf. further later.
17. Readers familiar with the New Testament will recognize the origin of these descriptions. I believe these Jews of the Jewish sect commonly called Christians were talking to other Jews in a style familiar to them all. From my perspective, the style is inappropriate, then and now, for both Judaism and Christianity. The Talmud says peasants are unclean animals, their wives are reptiles, their daughters beasts. Jesus and his disciples were Galileans. "Galilean" is also synonymous with a cursed, lawless rabble. So the New Testament hands out to the rabbinic Jews what the rabbinic Jews dumped on the Jesus Jews. Its not clear which came first -- the chicken or the egg. Cf Vermes, Jesus the Jew (NY: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 54ff. Unfortunately, mutual contempt has continued. Anti-Semitism is well known. Jewish contempt for Christians has been documented by Buchanan, op. cit. and remains common in the literature. See further later.
18. Divine Principle pp. 357, 510, etc. Note that the concern here is restoration of the Jews, and of all humanity, a standard theme in the Jewish Bible. Many Jews in Jesus' day hoped for the restoration of Israel. I'm told that some still do. Those people who believe in the devil commonly see him working through people as in I Chronicles 21:1. He even quotes Scripture. The Judas reference is Luke 22:3. Emil Fackenheim relates Christianity to the devil as he asks, "... has Christian theology even in its most saintly and profound character played into the devil's hands?" Quoted by Thomas A. Idinopulos and Roy B. Ward, "Is Christology Inherently Anti-Semitic? A Critical Review of Rosemary Ruether's Faith and Fratricide," Journal of the American Academy of Religion (hereafter JAAR) XLV No. 2 (June 77), p. 211. Here is a modem Jew accusing Christianity of being a tool of the devil, what the AJC objects to in the Divine Principle. Cf. further, Theodore H. Gaster, "Satan," IDB 4 (1962), 224-228. Vermes, op. cit., notes the belief in Jesus' day that the devil caused illness and sin. The Unification Church theologian, Young Oon Kim, states flatly and explicitly that "the Jews were not overwhelmed by Satan. No matter how often they had to walk through the valley of the shadow of death..." p. 219, Unification Theology and Christian Thought (NY: The Golden Gate Publishing Co.). This was published in 1975 before the current flap arose.
The ransom theory is a common one in the history of Christian doctrine. It is the doctrine of the Atonement in Judaism. Cf. Mark 10:45 in the New Testament. It is of course a Jewish doctrine well known in ¥)m Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Biblically it is the entire story of the Exodus, the origin of Israel in the view of some, that is, the belief in God as the Redeemer. Cf. Deuteronomy 7:8 and G. Ernest Wright, "Exegesis" of the Book of Deuteronomy, IB 2; (1953), 380-381. Hopefully, Rudin is not objecting to the restoration of the Jews. Some Jews and Christians do not think they need restoration.
19. Divine Principle, pp. 519, 226, 147, 485, etc. Cf. further later, on the Holocaust. The view that Jews suffer for their sins is common in Jewish thought. It is biblical. That they suffer for "crucifying Christ" is common in Christian thought. In my view, it should be repudiated. Historically it was the Romans who crucified Jesus as well as thousands of other Jews. For Christians to use this psychological "club" of the crucifixion of Jesus the Jew, against Jews, is a denial of everything that is Christian.
20. During the Nazi era, Christian attitudes were traditionally anti-Semitic. Robert R. Ross, So It Was True: The American Protestant Press and the Nazi Persecution of the Jews (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980). Morris C. Katz, "Canadian Record," CC 100, No. 10 (6 Ap '83), 325. For a contribution to Jewish-Unification, see Andrew Wilson, "Israels in the Divine Principle: Implications for Jewish-Christian Dialogue," unpublished manuscript, 25 Oct 77 Wilson denies any anti-Semitism in the Divine Principle and suggests Rudin read Divine Principle more carefully. See also Wilson's "A Unification Position on the Jewish People," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 20, No. 2 (Sept '83), pp. 191-208.
21. "A Critique of the Theology of the Unification Church as set forth in Divine Principle," June 77, available from the CFO. The statement as published is not signed. A covering letter from the then Commission Ch., Jorge Lara-Braud (Presbyterian), notes his own involvement in the report; the basic text was done by Sister Agnes Cunningham (Roman Catholic); she was assisted by Robert Nelson (United Methodist) and William L. Hendricks (Southern Baptist). The document as a whole is interesting as an example of" One person's orthodoxy is another's heresy" ("Take a Moonie to Lunch," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5 Jan 77). The CFO orthodoxy as reflected in this paper is very close to my own. It is of interest to note that neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Southern Baptist Convention belong to the NCC. For them, by their traditional standards, the NCC and its constituent members are not Christian. They are heretics. The hypocrisy of this process is mind boggling. On Southern Baptist anti-Semitism, cf. n. 25 later. On Roman Catholic anti-Semitism, cf. n. 27. On Methodist and Presbyterian anti-Semitism, cf. Strober, op. cit.
Dr. Lara-Braud released excerpts from the working paper on 28 Dec 76. The report concludes that the Unification Church is not Christian. That includes anti-Semitism. The Romans accused the Christians of heresy. The Catholics accused the Protestants of heresy. Now they get together in order to accuse someone else of heresy. And on and on it goes...
For further comments on the CFO document, see Frank K. Flinn, "Preface," pp. vii-xi in Frank Flinn, ed., Hermeneutics and Horizons: The Shape of the Future, (Barrytown, NY: Unification Theological Seminary, 1982).
22. Cf. Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6 on Israel's responsibility to the nations. Divine Principle, pp. 283, 298, 315, 535, etc. On p.6 of the CFO report, the authors note their awareness of the D P interpretation of the success of Abraham, Moses, etc., through faithfulness. Their statement interalia that the failure was total seems to falsify their own report. Questions about inconsistencies in the report and the action that led to it brought no answers on either. In Divine Principle, Christianity is called the Second Israel while the Hebrews/Jews are the First Israel. Not only have both failed in complete obedience, so has all humanity. Divine Principle is largely based on the Fall and God's Plan of Restoration. Until now, everyone has failed (Psalm 14:1; Roman 3:9). But God wants everyone to be saved, says Divine Principle and the Bible (II Peter 3:9). It is curious that the CFO committee is not interested in this nor particularly upset by the Divine Principle catalogue of Christian failures. Speaking as a Christian, I would say the catalogue has more truth than poetry, in it, though my own approach to the matter differs from that of Divine Principle. The data on Christian failure is ubiquitous. Perhaps the most infamous failure is anti-Semitism. If this committee or the NCC is genuinely concerned with anti-Semitism, they ought to do something about their own constituency. Cf. A. Roy Eckhardt, "Recent Literature on Christian-Jewish Relations," JAAR XLIX, No. 1 (Mar '81), 99-111. " 'Liberal' Christian view said to obstruct Jewish ties," UMR, 129, No. 20 (22 Oct '82), p. 3. The report quotes an investigation which claimed a Methodist bookstore was selling literature with anti-Jewish images. Cf. Carl D. Evans, "The Church's False Witness Against the Jews," CC 99, No. 16 (5 May '82), 530-533. When the Reader's Digest reported that the NCC and WCC were supporting Marxist groups, numbers of people accused the Digest of false witness. The Commandment says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (Exodus 20:16). If we bear false witness against our neighbor, on what ground do we object if we think someone is doing it to us? They are doing to us as we have done unto others. That is of course a perversion of the Golden Rule, a Rule up to which ethical troglodytes do not yet measure. "Bishop Deplores Attack Against Interfaith Effort," UMR 129, No. 25 (26 Nov '82), 4. Paul Abrecht, "Ecumenical Illiteracy in the 'Reader's Digest', "John A Lovelace, CC 99, No. 37 (24 Nov '82), 1195-1198. "NCC and Digest battle on," UMR 129, No. 34 (28 Jan '83), 4. Cf. further later n. 42.
23. The vast majority of Christian Church members exhibit an affinity for anti-Semitic beliefs and nearly half frankly admit to anti-Semitic feelings, say Charles Y Glock and Rodney Stark, Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism; NY: Harper and Row, 1966, p. 146. In 1981, acts of anti-Semitism more than doubled in the U.S. according to the Anti-Defamation League. "Anti-Semitism in the U.S.," CC 99, No. 2 (20 Jan '82), 49. Eugene J. Fisher, "Anti-Semitism," CC99, No. 12 (7 Ap '82), p. 425. Cf. Ernest Volkman, A Legacy of Hate: Anti-Semitism in America (NY: Franklin Watts, 1982). It is ironic that the AJC and other Jewish groups have issued angry denunciations of an NCC report on Israel. Jews boycotted preliminary hearings to prepare the NCC statement. Their prepared denunciations were handed out the moment after the NCC vote, i.e., the denunciations were prepared in advance. The NC C statement called for negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). So on the one hand, Jewish groups condemn the NCC, and then get together with the NCC to condemn the Unification Church.
Jean Caffrey Lyles, "No Peace Without the PLO?," CC XCVII, No. 38 (26 Nov '80), 1147-1148. Dan Louis, "UMs support council's new mid-East policy," UMR 8, No. 49, p. 3. Presumably this means the UM Church is condemned as anti-Semitic along with the NCC. Cf. also Allison Rook and Jay Vogelaar, "National Council of Churches Adopts New Comprehensive Statement on the Middle East," The Link 13, No. 5 (Dec '80), pp. 1-13. Tracy Early, "Mideast statement: no lasting damage?," The News World, 29 Nov '80, p. 1A. While protesting, Rabbi Rudin is quoted as assuring the NCC, "We will continue to work with you." The NC C is called anti-Semitic but the dialogue goes on anyway, without removal of the offensive passages. Cf. further later, footnote 58. Eckhardt, op. cit., p. 100, says the NCC and the World Council of Churches are both anti-Semitic. The irony is deepened by those who point out that Zionism was a Jewish heresy and is still thought to be such by some Jews. It is only in the past few decades that Jews and Jewish organizations opposed to Zionism have become proponents of Zionism. Such total switches in opinion could be called brainwashing. Cf. I. E Stone, "Confessions of a Jewish Dissident," The Palestine Forum (Mar-Ap 78), p. 3.
24. Cf. also Rev. Moon, "America and God's Will," The New York Times, 24 Sep 76, pp. A14-15. Moon called for brotherhood and unity among Jews, Christians and the Unification Church.
25. Release by the AJC, 20 Dec 76. "News Release" by the AJC, 28 Dec 76. William Claiborne, "3 Major Faiths Mount Harsh Attack on Moon," The Washington Post, 29 Dec 76. David F White, "Rev. Moon Strongly Criticized by Religious Leaders," The New York Times, 29 Dec 76. "Inter-religious Newsletter," 1, No. 3 (May 77), p. 5. Considering his statement about the Southern Baptists, it is ironic that the president of the Southern Baptist Convention was in the news in 1980. In August, the Rev. Bailey Smith said, "God doesn't hear the prayers of a Jew." In September, he said, "Why did (God) choose the Jews? I don't know why he chose the Jews. I think they got funny looking noses, myself." In December, he is reported to have apologized, though a personal communication reports he did not repudiate his words. Jean Caffrey Lyles laconically remarks, "There's no record that he's ever actually retracted the remark." Smith was re-elected in 1981. Southern Baptists have had a long standing program to convert Jews, which is anti-Semitic, according to the AJC. One is tempted to suggest that Southern Baptist Hendricks might want to do something about anti-Semitism in his own communion. The practice of pointing at someone else to cover one's own sin is a common psychological phenomenon called projection. "No Comment Department," CC XCVII, No. 38, p. 1150. Lyles, "Southern Baptist Detente," CCLCVIII, No. 22(18 July '81), 694-695. UMR 9, No. 4 (2 Jan '81), 2. Jacob Gartenhaus, "The Jewish Conception of the Messiah," Christianity Today XIV, No. 12 (13 Mar 70), 8-10. It is of interest that Rabbi Tanenbaum did not call upon Christians and Jews to remove the offensive passages from the Bible as a demonstration of their good faith. "Public Relations pieties" is an interesting phrase. We note in passing that the CFO committee that objected to anti-Semitism has not offered their services for such effort.
The "canards" are still quite useful. They are applied (projected?, diverted?) to the new religions. James and Marcia Rudin, Prison or Paradise: The New Religious Cults (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). S&B, op. cit. Cox. NB, op. cit. WSI. The old anti-Semitic canards, or the deep structures of religious persecution, to use Cox' phrase (he calls them myths used by the persecutors against the persecuted), are used to accuse the new religions. Sexual irregularities (both too much and too little), power, wealth, politics, involvement with foreign governments, heresy are all here. Only here, they are directed from the Jews to others. The sources of the information are often the enemies of the new religions, ex-members who have now turned on their former compatriots, just as anti-Semites in the past have used ex-Jews who have turned on Judaism. A book on Judaism drawing only on anti-Semites would be quite sure to produce the same old tired canards. Would the use of such anti-Semitic sources produce an honest understanding of Judaism? It seems doubtful, very doubtful indeed. So a book like the Rudins drawing on ex-Moonies and others produces what one would expect.
26. Faith and Prejudice (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963). The study covered other religious prejudices and racism, as well as anti-Semitism.
27. Arlene and Howard Eisenberg, "The Christian War on Anti-Semitism," Look, 2 June 64. The Roman Catholic Declaration on non-Christian Religions (1965) is also a bit curious. It says, "... the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from Holy Scripture." The anti-Semite can say, "Fine. They are accursed as long as we don't use the Bible." The Covenant is forever. They are not rejected or accursed at all in my understanding. To reject or curse the Jews is a mockery of Jesus the Jew who said we are to love our neighbor and we are to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Cp. the Presbyterian statement quoted in the AJC report by Rudin. Andrew M. Greeley noted Roman Catholic anti-Semitism in a column, "Vatican on Anti-Semitism." He cited insensitivity and resistance by the Curia to the Vatican Council's statement on the Jews. San Antonio Light (12 Jan '83), 5J. The Roman Catholic author of the CFO committee report claimed anti-Semitism was in the past in 1976. Greeley apparently does not see it as past in 1983 in her church.
On Jesus' crucifixion, cf. Leonard C. Yiseen, "The 2,000th Year," Together, (July "73). Yiseen presents another curiosity in terms of motive. He quotes the United Methodist document (1972) against anti-Semitism. Its purpose is to continue Jewish and Christian efforts for the common cause of mankind. He himself says we can't afford the luxury of discrimination because of the danger of nuclear war. I appreciate the pragmatic approach, but one could simply say that anti-Semitism is wrong. It is un-Christian. That should be reason enough for Christians to stop it, even if there were no danger at all of nuclear or any other kind of war.
28. Note that the Eisenbergs agree with Rev. Moon on the hope for concord. Perhaps we should all be hoping and working toward that end.
29. "In the Church's closet... Anti-Semitism: a lively skeleton," The Christian Advocate, 22 Ap '65.
30. Portrait of an Elder Brother, op. cit.
31. The Rudins, however, note that while some Christian groups repudiate the proselytizing of Jews, there are close ties between "Jews for Jesus" and the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod. In July 77 the LCMS planned to have half their people become effective witnesses to the Jews whom they depicted as agnostic materialists. Cf. A. James and Marcia R. Rudin, "The Jews for Jesus (and others too) are out to get your kids," Present Tense 4, No. 4 (Summer 77), p. 23. Balfour Brickner, "Christian Missionaries and a Jewish Response," World-view 21, No. 5 (May 78), pp. 37-41. In the ACM, the primary target was the UC.
The ACM never succeeded in becoming a national organization say S&B. They think one reason is that the ACM could not agree on what is a religion that needs to be repressed. The AJC wanted to so designate Jews for Jesus as a new religion, a cult, but others in the ACM thought converting Jews is legitimate business. S&B, p. 114. "Shall We Evangelize the Jews?", Christianity Today XIV No. 12 (13 Mar 70), 33-34, is an editorial which answers the question positively.
32. Strober, op. cit., p. 55. CC (24 Sep '80), p. 873, reported that Rufus Cornelson of the Lutheran Church in America had been appointed Director of the NC C Office of Christian-Jewish Relations and staff assistant to the NCC Commission on Regional and Local Ecumenism. Issac Rottenberg was chairman for five years as of 1978. He accused the NCC of being anti-Israel. CC XCVIII, No. 9 (18 Mar '81), p. 289.
33. "Religious Education in the Future Tense," Religious Education, (Mar-Ap 73), pp. 157-169. This is a superb article which I highly recommend to anyone interested in religious education or simply the current scene. For a Christian study that comes to a similar conclusion, see Rottenberg, "Should there be a Christian Witness to the Jews?," CC XCIV No. 13 (13 Ap 77), pp. 352-356. Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1954), p. 223, says that because of the unfaithfulness of the church, many who are born in supposedly Christian families are almost as ignorant of the true nature of the Christian faith as pagans. We can note in passing a key word in Tanenbaum's statement. "Proselytization" is in disrepute these days. Leslie Newbigin said, "Evangelism is what I do, proselytization is what other people do." Quoted by J. Richard Peck, "The Comfortable Pigeonhole," The Circuit Rider 2, No. 4 (Feb 78), 2. Cf. also Gaylord Noyce, "The Ethics of Evangelism," CC XCVI, No. 32 (10 Oct 79), 973-976. It is an interesting problem. The AJC has raised no objection to a New Jersey group whose stated aim is to convert grammar school children. Catholics and Jews are primary targets for this effort. On the other hand, some would say Tanenbaum's words come back to him with the observation that most American Jews are non-observant and many are secularists. Perhaps it would be more objective to say that we all need to work on the depth and consistency of our faith and its practice.
34. The Rudins, op. cit. p. 22. Brickner, op. cit., p. 37, notes that "Judaism has lost more Jews to apathy or assimilation than it ever has -- or probably ever will -- to the blandishments of Christian missionaries." Estimations of Unification membership vary widely. One figure is 30,000 which is actually the membership goal in the U.S. Actual core membership is closer to 3,000. The first UC. missionary arrived in the U.S. in 1959. In 24 years, that is less than 200 per year which compares in an interesting way with the Jews' "take" of seven or eight thousand converts per year. Every year the Jews get twice as many converts as the Unification Church's entire membership after 24 years of effort. In the same period, a single Presbyterian church went from a membership of 22 to over 4500. The Mormons have increased by one million in this same period.
For another perspective, see David A. Rausch, "The Messianic Jewish Congregational Movement," CC99, No. 28 (15-22 Sep 82), 926-929. He notes that "Jews for Jesus" (led by Martin Rosen) grossed nearly $2.5 million in the previous year. Susan Perlman writes that is the figure for 1979. She has a different perspective than Rausch. "Messianic Jews," CC 99, No. 31 (13 Oct '82), pp. 1028-1029.
35. It is of course, not unusual for a group to denounce another group for something the first group is doing. At a meeting of a psychological association, ostensibly called to discuss the psychology of the cults, the group in charge of the meeting denounced the U C for not allowing freedom of choice. They allowed no freedom of discussion. They gave details (one is tempted to say they were quite proud of their activities) of kidnapping their children (who were in their 20's and 30's), and forcibly holding the "kids" against their will and deprogramming them. Freedom of choice? Cf. also Robert H. Tucker's discussion of "Jewish 'fellow Pages" which urge Jews to buy Jewish. The Anti-Defamation League took the "Christian "fellow Pages" to court for anti-Semitism. In war, it is common to condone actions by our troops while denouncing the other side for doing the same thing. One curious side point in deprogramming is the way in which it is tolerated when practiced against a religious group. No one to my knowledge has deprogrammed pushers, prostitutes, pornographers, members of organized crime, or other criminals. When "behavior modification" was used on convicts to help them to acceptable behavior, there was a great hue and cry that this violated the civil rights of the convicts. People accept adults who choose to be alcoholics and all these other things but a choice of religion is not acceptable. In my personal opinion, this is a very warped, a really bizarre sense of values.
36. James A. Franklin, "Sense of belonging is magnet for Moon group, says Rabbi," Boston Globe, 16 Feb 77, p. 26, 2nd section. The article actually quotes Rudin as saying 10-12%. In a personal communication, he used the figure of 10%. He notes that target groups of Unification Church evangelism are college freshmen and seniors. Substantial numbers of these appear to be indifferent to their Jewish heritage. Cf. Thomas Piazza, "Jewish Identity and the Counterculture," pp. 245-264, The New Religious Consciousness, ed. Charles Y Glock and Robert N. Bellah (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976). Brickner, op. cit., p. 37. Ina press release on 29 December 76, Dr. Josef Hausner confirmed the point. Unification Church members of Jewish background were "lost" to Judaism in the drug culture and alienated radical groups before they came to the Movement. Dr. Hausner is a Rumanian survivor of the Holocaust who teaches at the Unification Theological Seminary and who remains committed to his orthodox Jewish tradition. Numbers of Unification Church members of Christian background claim they were inactive and non-religious before coming into the Unification Church. They are grateful to the U C for helping them appreciate their ancestral faith. The same inactivity appears in the background of adherents of other new religions as well. Cf. James V. Downton, Jr., Sacred Journeys: The Conversion of Young Americans to Divine Light Mission (NY: Columbia University Press, 1979). Some members of the Unification Church are and were active members of their parental religious group or were active seekers of religious truth. Some Unification Church members who had dropped out of their parental religions are grateful to the Unification Church for reviving their interest in their ancestral group.
Eugene B. Borowitz says American Jewry as a whole has been largely secularized. Agnosticism and atheism are endemic. "Most Jews are far from being... observant or pious." Cf. his "Judaism in America Today," CC XCV No. 36 (8 Nov 79), 1066-1070. If he is right, Jews in general "do not have a deep faith." It is not surprising then that young adults of a Jewish background "do not have a deep faith." The less than 200 in the U C did not, but they do now. Personally, I see that as a gain. My personal value system says it is better to have strong faith in God than none at all. I find it difficult to understand those parents and others who prefer no faith, dope addiction, alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, etc., because these are "normal" in today's world. Parenthetically, if Borowitz is right, the LCMS is at least partly right in its estimate of American Jews though they have been accused of anti-Semitism for this.
37. J. Gordon Melton and Robert L. Moore, The Cult Experience (NY: Pilgrim Press, 1982), pp. 30,134. Again, proselytism is an interesting phenomenon. The Rudins offer no objection to 7-8,000 Christians converting to Judaism, only to the 400 Jews who convert to Christianity. Dow Kirkpatrick watched "tens of thousands of Cubans" parading for May Day in Havana. "I thought that it Methodism could mount an equal demonstration, we would call it 'successful evangelism.' " UMR. 22 Jul 77, p. 2.
38. Ibid., p. 37.
39. Alexander Cruden, Complete Concordance (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1949), pp. 518-519. Tanenbaum, "Religious Education...," p. 162. Olson, "In the Church's closet...," Rosemary Radford Ruether, Faith and Fratricide (NY: The Seabury Press, 1974), p. 26.
40. Greg Lewis, "Rabbi Calls Moon Church 'Ominous,' Cautions Parents," Greensboro Daily News, 10 Feb 77, p. C7. John Roberts, "Rabbi: Moon slurs Jews," Greensboro Record, 11 Feb 77. Jones, op. cit. Franklin, op. cit. Dan Frazier, "Moo hit for bigotry, distortions," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 8 Mar 77. Mike Anderson, "Rabbi Says Unification Church Harmful," Pittsburgh Press, 29 Mar 77. Berkeley Rice made a similar judgment: "Moon's Family, a warm womb, shuts out care, responsibility, and the need to think for oneself." Cf. his "Honor Thy Father Moon," Psychology Today 9, No. 8 (Jan 76), 26-47 Like Rudin too, Rice notes parental objections to the young joining the Unification Church but Rice adds that other parents approve, feeling it is better than drugs or drifting aimlessly around the country. Neither commentator offers sources or evidence for this view. It might be supported by Robert N. Bellah who notes the inability of America's utilitarian individualism to give meaning to existence. The religious fallout of the '60s is a demand for immediate religious experience and face-to-face community, which the churches cannot fulfill or at least do not for some. The new religious movements provide this plus a sense of stability after the instability of the '60s. Eastern Religions have the added attractiveness of a sharp contrast with western materialism. Cf. his "New Religious Consciousness and the Crisis in Modernity' pp. 333-352, in The New Religious Consciousness, op. cit. See also Tanenbaum, "Religious Education...,"pp. 157f. Cf. further B&S. WSI.NB. What is not clear is why the new religions should be condemned for providing what the world needs.
Personal observation indicates that the U C does not shut out care and responsibility but just the opposite. Some of the dropouts from the Unification Church have indicated they just could not "hack" the high standards. Instead of a warm womb, Unificationists are required to think and plan and produce in a context that more resembles the Puntan work ethic than today's extended babyhood that excuses responsibility on all sides of America.
41. Judaism and Christianity were once attractive for some of these same reasons in the pagan world of Rome. It must be emphasized again however that many Romans came to these religions because they really believed (Matt. 8:5, 27:54; Acts 10:1) and many members of the Unification Church come because they think the Principle is true. They believe among other things that Rev. Moon has overcome the dichotomy between science and religion. The Divine Principle is a rational interpretation of history that makes sense where other interpretations are less satisfactory to them. Brickner, op. cit., p. 39, suggests we might try correcting the system that failed instead of "snatching" the convert.
42. Claiborne, op. cit. AJC report, op. cit. The irony here may not be apparent to the reader. Rev. Moon sees western democracy as the epitomy of civilization and communism as the world's greatest threat to human well-being and to God's will. The AJC is accusing the pro-democracy, anti-communist Unification Church of being undemocratic and pro-communist. Anti-Semitism has long accused the Jews of being undemocratic and communist as well as being Nazis loyal to the foreign nation of Israel. Anti-Zionists claim Jews have acted out their theology by conquering Arab Palestine. Rev. Moon supports the present state of Israel. He is pro-Zionist. Parenthetically, we can note the NCC has been called communist. " 'Fortune' Accuses NCC," CCXCVII, No. 27 (27 Aug-3 Sep '80), 815-816. So has the World Council of Churches. Joseph A. Harries, "Karl Marx or Jesus Christ," Reader's Digest 121, No. 724 (Aug '82), 130-134. The charge has been angrily repudiated. Cf. Albrecht, op. cit. It is hard to say whether these charges and counter-charges are just thoughtless (brainwashed?) remarks or if it is a way of diverting old age attacks onto another. One would like to think the chargers are sincere but when the same old tired canards appear again and again, one wonders. I trust the irony here is also obvious. When we accuse others, that's one thing. When others accuse us, we get mad.
Protestants have commonly accused Catholicism of being authoritarian and totalitarian though some Protestants are more rigid than the Pope. Catholicism is currently going through an upheaval in its authority structure. Cf. Andrew M. Greeley, William C. McCready and Kathleen McCourt, Catholic Schools in a Declining Church (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1976), p. 32, only 32% think the Pope is infallible; p. 35, 83% approve of artificial contraception in spite of the Pope's words against it. Piazza, op. cit., p. 245 notes, "traditional Judaism was authoritative in defining social roles, patterns of behavior, and a system of belief for Jews." He adds that this traditional authority has been declining for many years. So the AJC and others accuse the Unification Church of being authoritarian, just what they were and in some quarters still are. It is as though they are saying to the Unification Church that what we used to be and do is wrong and you can't be like us. Within the Unification Church, both members and non-members report greater freedom than in many other groups. This is not a freedom for immorality but freedom of thought and practice in promoting high ideals such as obedience to God which also used to be an ideal in Judaism and Christianity. I have Jewish and Christian friends for whom high ideals are still important even if Borowitz and others see this in decline.
43. Such an investigation was begun in 1977 (CC XCIV No. 30, p. 841). It was part of a larger study, the Investigation of Korean-American Relations, published in a series of Reports of the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations, U. S. House of Representatives; Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 31 Oct 78. Various volumes were published for stated portions of the hearings. The Unification Church responded through Bo Hi Pak, Truth is My Sword (NY: Unification Church in America, 1978), and, through a volume titled, Our Response (NY: Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1979). Both are available from the HSA-UWC, 4 West 43rd St., New York, NY 10036. The former is available through the committee, Congress or the Printing Office. The Congressional Committee failed to prove any connections between the Unification Church and the KCIA. One wonders if others groups would fare as well, say in terms of connections with Israel, or the Vatican, or the CIA in missionary quarters. While living in the Near East, I was accused several times of being with the American CIA. This is not an unusual occurrence. Jeffrey Pickard, "Hey -- Are "You with the CIA?," The Rising Tide VII, No. 15 (10-24 Oct 77), p. 5.
45. Cf. n. 41. The refusal to take doctrine seriously is of course a form of discrimination. Jews are accused of not believing anything. In Puritan New England, Quakers were condemned because they were Quakers. They were not asked what they believed. S&B and B&S make it clear that the condemnation of the Unification Church is sociological rather than theological. Cf. also Cox,. "War on the Moonies," Human Behavior 6, No. 9 (Sep 77), 37. Fichter, "Youth in Search of the Sacred," WSI-21-41.
45A. The human need for a scapegoat is an entire study in itself. Robert Coles has suggested that "We crave scapegoats, targets to absorb our self-doubts, our feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness." See his "Psychology and Armageddon," Psychology Today 16, No. 5 (May '82),13-14, 88. Sydney Harris speaks of a psychological drive, as yet unidentified, that seems to compel us to divide rather than unite. "Mankind's seductive trait that may be the undoing," Detroit Free Press, 2 Aug '82, p. 78. His "unidentified" and the scapegoating process may be the repetition compulsion which makes abused children become abusing parents. See Ashley Montague, "Poisonous Pedagogy," Psychology Today, 17, No. 5 (May '83), pp. 80-81.
46. "Religious Education..," pp. 157f. Numbers of commentators have compared this description of our era with that of Jesus' day. As the pagan world was "ready" for Jewish missionaries and the Gospel ("in the fullness of time God brought forth His Son"), our world is "ready for " Perhaps this explains Rev. Moon's "success." It needs to be noted though that estimates of the numbers of his converts are a fraction of those converting to Judaism which is not exactly a "new religion." To me, Judaism is a religion while others disagree. Cf. Diamond, op. cit.
47. Michael Mewshaw calls this "grotesque parodies of exorcism." He is intrigued as I am with the fact that dope dealers and pornographers are not kidnapped and deprogrammed. Nor are Protestant seminary students, Catholic nuns or Orthodox Jews. So why are "born again Christians singled out?" Cf. his "Irrational Behavior of Evangelical Zeal," The Chronicle of Higher Education (hereafter CHE) XV No. 7 (18 Oct 76), 32. The professional deprogrammer Ted Patrick has a list of 5,000 cults including Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. Cf. "Houston (Episcopalian) church on 'Cult' List," CC XCIV No. 29 (21 Sep 77), 809. William C. Shepherd, "The Prosecutor's Reach: Legal Issues Stemming from the New Religious Movements," The Journal of the American Academy of Religion L, No. 2 (1982), 187-214. Anti-cult legislation has been used against Jews, Christians and religionists in general. Melton and Moore, op. cit., p. 95.
48. Tony Martinez, "Dr. James Penton," The Cornerstone 1, No. 11 (May 77), p. 6. Hundreds of thousands of JW's were slaughtered in Africa with no protest from the West. While JW's may not be hated like poison in the West, there's not much love or concern. On the loyalty issue as one of the standard myths used by religious persecutors throughout history, cf. Cox,. On Christianity as disloyal, cf. Ruether, op. cit., p. 29. The anti-Semites normally charge the Jews with disloyalty.
49. The Forster and Epstein study, op. cit., effectively deals with the myths of Jewish control of the media and of government. They also cover Zionism, which has been called a political ideology masquerading as a religion. Rabbi Rudin claims the Unification Church "is nothing less than a 'political movement dressed in religious garb.' " Once again, an anti-Semitic barb is transferred to the Unification Church. Cf. Roberts, op. cit. On a Jewish dictatorship of the world and the destruction or enslavement of Christians, cf. Buchanan, op. cit. One Arab view of Zionism is that it is a political movement dressed in religious garb. A news report said the Ayatollah of Iran claimed the Baha'i faith is not a religion but a Washington-backed political party. The Baha'is are now outlawed in Iran. Cf. CC 100, No. 21 (6-13 July '83), 642, and, CC 100, No. 29 (12 Oct '83), p. 898.
50. Campbell, op. cit., p. 23. Jean Caffrey Lyles, "Charismatics: Beyond 'Sloppy Agape'," CC XCIV No. 17 (17-24 Aug 77), 708. Lyles defends the right of personal choice even when others such as parents disapprove. "Letting Go: Everybody has the Right to be Wrong," CC XCIV No. 17 (11 May 77), 451 -453. Rudin says the First Amendment freedoms include the "right to screw up your own life" (Anderson, op. cit.). That should mean one has a right to choose to be a Jew or a Moonie or even a Methodist.
51. Greeley, et. al., op. cit., pp. 8, 43, 51, 57, 73 "the standard of comparison for ethnic success has always been the Jews -- a standard that derives from one of the most outstanding success stories in all human history." Anti-Semites deride this success while others applaud success, whether of Jews or Moonies. See also Gerald Krefetz, Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality (NY: Ticknor and Fields, 1983). Glock and Stark, op. cit., p. 110, note how in the Dark Ages, Christians forced Jews to become money lenders and thus created the myth of Jewish economic power. While Jews are systematically excluded from the banking industry, the myth teaches that international banking is dominated by Jews. Anti-Semites conjure up images of Jews as munitions manufacturers who profit from both sides of a war. Rumors persist that Rev. Moon's wealth comes from munitions factories -- another anti-Semitic myth diverted to the Unification Church.
One criticism of Rev. Moon is that he lives in a big house, i.e., expensive. The cost of housing for leadership is a fascinating question whether one considers religious leaders, labor union leaders, or others. A recent report said t cost $440,000 merely for the renovations of a university owned president's home. Total costs, including moving, furnishings and other expenses were listed at 1.2 million dollars. Note that the property was already owned and this is in excess of the original purchase price. Cf. John McMillen, "Hackneys Move Into Renovated Eisenlohr," The Daily Pennsylvanian XC VIII, No. 67 (15 Sep '82), pp. 1, 9. Steven K. Ludwig, "The Shadow Knows," Daily Pennsylvanian XCVIII, No. 74 (24 Sep '82), p. 4.
52. UMR 9, No. 9 (6 Feb '81), 1, reports the annual income of Oral Roberts to be $60 million, Billy Graham $38 million, the Armstrongs $65 million, Robert Schuller $58 million, Jerry Falwell $33 million, the 700 Club $30 million, Rex Humbard $18 million, PTL Club $25 million, Christian Broadcast Network $58 million. The United Methodist Church's income is 1.6 billion a year.
53. Bruce Russell, "Persecution to prosperity: the Mormon Saga," News World, 29 Aug 77, p. IB. Rudin is also concerned with the Unification Church acquisition of property. Residents of Clearwater, Florida were upset when the Church of Scientology acquired $1.85 million worth of hotel and office buildings. An upstate New York county has more land in non-profit (tax free) hands than there is land on the tax rolls. There has been much discussion in recent years about the possibility of taxing churches and synagogues. Religion controls property that runs into billions of dollars in value, according to conservative estimates. The debate continues with cogent arguments on both sides. Cf. D. B. Robertson, Should Churches be Taxed? (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968). Dean M. Kelly, Why Churches Should Not Pay Taxes (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977). Rudin did not say how much property is owned by Jewish or other religious groups nor did he suggest they give up their tax-free status.
54. O. Dillon Neal, "Is self-interest an enemy among the clergy, or just among others?," UMR 5, No. 46 (28 Oct 77), p. 2.
55. Glock and Stark, op. cit., pp. 139f, note that Hitler believed Jews seduced unsuspecting German girls and removed them from the bosom of their people. "Child stealing" is an old charge against Jews and others, and now the Unification Church. The deprogrammers publicly admit and "brag" about stealing 'children' -- kidnapping people. Borowitz, op. cit., points out that American Jews are expected to support Israel, no matter what. Support for the Zionist cause is now the "raison d'etre" of American Jewry. Such 'party line' and 'toe the line' expectations are common in adult circles. We do not call it brainwashing but I at least find it difficult to distinguish the two. If we are not free to think for ourselves and have our own opinion about things, including the modem state of Israel, are we not brainwashed or subjected to thought control? The brainwashing charge is a variant of the evil eye or the hex or the vampire myth which Cox, op. cit., sees as one of the deep structures of religious persecution throughout history.
The concern for children may be a reflection of America's extended babyhood by which we keep people out of the job market. A century ago, the average age of people having religious conversions was 16. Today it is 22. More and more parents are assuming responsibility for their children into the 20's in addition to paying for college expenses. The kidnapping and deprogramming of people may be seen as an extension or continuation of this parental control. Parents do not always readily accept the growing up of their children.
56. Christianity was said to be immoral and disloyal in its early centuries. Cf. Ruether, op. cit., p. 29. E. P. Sanders, ed., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Vol. 1: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977). Hitler's anti-Semitism included a sexual element. Seen. 55. The dissimulation myth and the orgy myth are two of the deep structures Cox, op. cit., sees throughout the history of religious persecution.
57. "Life Line," published by Ministers' Life, Aug 77 The statement is debated but in my view, Akhenaton was not a monotheist.
58. "Church leaders call for human rights in Israel," UMR 5 Aug 77, p. 3. They based their call on a series of articles in The Sunday Times of London. The charges and Israel's denial are available as a reprint booklet, Israel and Torture, from Americans for Middle East Understanding. Forster and Epstein, op. cit., p. 17, state that "Of course one can be unsympathetic to or oppose Israel's position on specific issues without being anti-Jewish... but many statements carry an undeniable anti-Jewish message..." They give examples of this new anti-Semitism (pp. 83ff; 309ff) and include Michael Novak's comment, "To be a Zionist is now virtually identical with being Jewish -- and the difference between the two is not for a Christian to adjudicate." See also Volkman, op. cit. Perhaps it is equally difficult to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, but in the present context, it is worth repeating that the Unification Church and Rev. Moon are pro-Israel. If it is anti-Semitic to be anti-Zionist, it would seem to follow that to be pro-Zionist would be at least some kind of evidence for being pro-Jewish and not anti-Semitic. The Unification Church and Rev. Moon are allies of the AJC in this cause.
Roman Catholics and 20 Protestant denominations urged President Reagan to cut foreign aid to Israel until she recognizes the human rights of the Palestinians. "Middle East petition has UM signers," UMR 9, No. 7 (23 Jan '81), 4. "Clergy Call for Cut in Aid to Israel," CC XCVIII, No. 2 (21 Jan '81), 40. The World Jewish Congress claims Jews have a right to think for themselves and criticize Israel if they wish. "Jewish Study Criticizes Israel's Affairs," The Miami Herald, 22 Jan '81, p. 2A. Progressive Jews from all over America organized the "New Jewish Agenda." The agenda includes opposition to Israeli government policies and a re-affirmation of Jewish values like justice and Peace. "Progressive Jews Organize," CC XCVIII, No. 5 (18 Feb '81), 161. Are these all anti-Semites? William Ward, "Semantics of Anti-Semitism," The Middle East Newsletter III, No. 4 (May-June '69), pp. 2-3. The Jews of the New Jewish Agenda were excommunicated for criticizing Israel, in Nov 82. Cf. "Liberal Jews excommunicated," The News World (27-28 Nov '82), p. IB. The Shalom Network is an organization dedicated to the survival of Israel but they do not excuse everything Israel does. Network Jews are also committed to self-determination for the Palestinian people. The Shalom Network Newsletter 2, Nos. 8-9 (Oct/Nov '81), p. 1.
Cf. n. 23 earlier. The double standard of morality is an old one. It has been used against Jews, women, Blacks, Catholics and other out-groups. The State of Israel is, however, a problem, along with the Zionism that gave it birth. As Diamond, op. cit., has noted, when Zionism was born 90 years ago, religious Jews condemned it as a heresy. Even today there are orthodox Jews who are anti-Zionists. They consider Israel the ultimate in rebellion against God. Diamond sees Israel as having demonic as well as redemptive potential. But the real thrust of his article is that Christians do not understand Israel, nor do Jews! We need dialogue and discussion to answer our ambiguities and questions. One of the question is whether a Christian can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic. For some, the two are still separate issues. The irony remains that the AJC and the Unification Church support Israel and the NCC does not. The AJC condemns the NCC but does not commend the Unification Church. The AJC dialogues with the NCC which has not removed "the offensive passages" while refusing to dialogue with the Unification Church which supports the Zionist cause.
59. The New York Times, 18 Dec 76, op. cit.
60. The AJC report, p. 5.
61. Oberlin Alumni Magazine 73, No. 4 (July/Aug 77), pp. 8-10.
62. "The Holocaust: 1933-1945," no date.
63. Cf. n. 1. Jane Day Mook, "New Growth on Burnt-Over Ground. Ill: The Unification Church," A.D. 3, No. 5 (May 74), pp. 30-36.
64. The "Jewish Declaration" (Nostra Aetate), was produced in 1965. The Vatican Guidelines for Catholic-Jewish Relations in 1975. That is, it took 10 years just to develop the guidelines, some 30 years after World War II. Rome in Italy and the Catholic Church in Germany were rather close to the whole Holocaust. The Unification Church did not even exist and Rev. Moon was half a world away. In 1977, the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Committee on Liturgy recommended the "Reproaches" be dropped from the Good Friday services 32 years later and over 40 years after Hitler began his evil. Cf. the Inter-religious Newsletter 1, No. 3 (May 77), 1. The article seems positive though it took almost 2,000 years after the Romans killed Jesus for the Roman Catholic Church to get around to removing the reproaches against the Jews for what the Romans had done. In the same year as the Declaration, Olson reports a first grade primer used in Spain, showed Jews crucifying Spanish Christian children on a wall. The text asked, "Of what biblical incident does this remind you?" It is an ongoing and continuing phenomenon. Protestant anti-Semitism was noted earlier. In this context, note that world Lutheran leaders repudiated Martin Luther's anti-Semitism. They did this in the summer of 1983, a mere 450 years later. The news report did not quote the Jewish delegation on public relations pieties nor the 40 years that have passed since the Holocaust. CC 100, No. 25 (31 Aug 83), 770. The Protestant Church of the Rhineland was as close to the Holocaust as Roman Catholics. It took a Synod of this group until January, 1980, to confess guilt for the Holocaust. See Franklin H. Littell, "Lest We Forget: Holocaust Well Planned, Supervised by Universities," The Jewish Times of the Greater Northeast (1 July '82), p. 14.
The irony of it all is demonstrated by a personal experience. A Jewish book published in 1967 had been checked out of the library at least a dozen times. Several articles had been read. Jacob Robinson's had not. I slit the pages and read of his concern for the apathy people had about the holocaust. The uncut pages suggest the apathy is still with us. "Research on the Jewish Catastrophe -- Where Does it Stand Today?," pp. 15-20, Fourth World Jewish Congress, vol. 1 Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967.
A new report claimed a study commission broke up without finishing its study of American Jews on the Holocaust. Could American Jews have saved Jewish victims of the Nazi regime? Some Jews say yes while others deny this. "Look Back in Anger," New York Times, (9 Jan '83), p. 8E.
64A. Simon, pp. 11, 13, 15. There is a burgeoning Holocaust literature. Eckhardt, op. cit., reviews the main material of the 1970's. Cf. Michael D. Ryan, ed., Human Responses to the Holocaust (NY: Mellen Press, 1981). Borowitz, op. cit. Black, "Traumatic Sojourn: A Jewish Refugee Re-encounters Europe," CC XCVIII, No. 21 (17-24 June '81), pp. 668-670. If one is honestly concerned with the Holocaust, instead of condemning literature produced before 1954 as inadequate, one might look at the current scene. Eckhardt claims Germany is as anti-Semitic as ever. The Holocaust has had little if any impact on leading theologians like Moltmann, Pannenberg, Rahner and Kiing. He goes on to say that America is hardly the Kingdom of God in sensitivity to the Holocaust. Op. cit., p. 101. One is tempted to suggest it is an insult to the holy dead of the Holocaust to be fiddling with pre-1954 Korean literature when we ourselves are so inadequate and gratuitous in our sensitivity to the Holocaust. Nahum Goldman says, "To use the Holocaust as an excuse for the bombing of Lebanon, for instance, as Menachem Begin does, is a kind of 'Hillul Hashem,' a banalization of the sacred tragedy of the shoah, which must not be misused to justify politically doubtful and morally indefensible policies." The Shalom Network Newsletter,. I repeat, such use of the Holocaust is an insult to the holy dead.
65. A. James and Marcia B. Rudin, "pied pipers and would-be messiahs" keeping posted Feb 77, pp. 20-22, offprint. It may be appropriate here to note that Robins with his Jewish background may not be familiar with the extensive use of military language by Christian groups. It is very extensive for example in hymnology, e.g., "Onward Christian Soldiers," "Soldiers of Christ Arise," "Battle Hymn of the Republic," ad infinitum. The Roman Catholic Society of Jesus (Jesuits) has had a military type organization for centuries. The Protestant Salvation Army is organized along military lines. Jean Caffrey Lyles, "New Battle Plan for Booth's Army," CC XCVII, No. 27 (27 Aug-3 Sep '80), pp. 811-812. William Booth, the founder was a Methodist. From a Jewish perspective, Christian militarism has indeed been a threat over the centuries. From an Arab perspective, Zionist military power appears threatening. Arabs would perhaps wholeheartedly agree that Zionists have built "an army, not a church." "Religion and Warfare were constantly linked in the Middle East in 1980..." UMR 9, No. 4 (2 Jan '81), p. 1.
The Rudin article does not say Robins is an ex-Jew. If he is Jewish, he is oddly unfamiliar with the Tenak, the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish Bible, the Protestant Old Testament. It contains extensive wars and rumors of war. This includes The Holy War(s). Holy War is quite pervasive in the text. The Holy War is a holocaust, at least for the enemies of the Hebrews or Jews. This ban or "cherem" was extended to the apocalypse by Jewish writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the latter is one called "The War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness." The Jewish Qumranites of course were the sons of light. Everyone else will be killed in a holocaust. If the Qumranite Jews had won, there would be neither rabbinic nor Jesus Jews left alive. There would be no one left alive except the Qumranite Jews. On holy war, cf. Lawrence E. Toombs, "War, Ideas of," IDB 4 (1962), pp. 796-801. Norman K. Gottwald, "War, Holy," IDB Supplementary volume; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976, pp. 942-944. Gerhard von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel (Zurich: Zwingh, 1951). Rudolf Smend, Yahweh War and Tribal Confederation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970). Millard C. Lind, Yihweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1980). The common idea in the Hebrew Scriptures is the "herem" or "cherem", the ban or "devoted", which involved total destruction of whole peoples (genocide) and indeed destruction of everything that could be destroyed. However, there is some question about how often it was actually practiced. Marvin H. Pope, "Devoted," IDB 1:838-839, Exodus 22:20; Numbers 18:14; 21:2-4; 31:7-12, 17-18. Leviticus 27:31. Deuteronomy 2:34; 7:1-3; 13:17; 20:16-18; 21:10-14. Joshua 2:10: 6:17, Isaiah 34:2. Micah 4:13. In view of the Zionist claim that the Bible promises Jews the Holy Land, the Arabs might with some correctness be concerned about the Holy War talk of the Bible. The ban or cherem in subsequent centuries was transmuted to a kind of excommunication. In the middle ages, Jews excommunicated each other so often, the process lost much of its effectiveness. Cf. Joseph Hausner, "Ban and Excommunication: The Meaning, Usage and Purpose of the Herem," unpublished manuscript.
In our present discussion, however, our concern is simply the odd silence of the Jewish informant who claims the Unification Church is militaristic without saying anything about the militarism of his people or that of the Christian society in which he lives. That could be called deception. Without questioning Mr. Robins' veracity, one could note that anyone who wrote a book on Judaism and relied on anti-Semites for information might legitimately be suspected of anti-Semitism. One could question their motives and at least be permitted a doubt or two that the writer wanted an honest understanding of Judaism. Are we permitted to reverse that reasoning? If someone relies on ex-Moonies for information, may we wonder if they are seeking an honest understanding of the Unification Church? Or, are they merely diverting the old anti-Semitic canards onto a new victim?
66. Bicentennial God Bless America Festival Statement of Purpose.
67. Rabbi Richard Rubenstein, public lecture, Drew University, Feb 77 Fackenheim notes that in 1942, "Rabbi Israel Shapiro of Grodzisk was telling his flock about to die at Treblinka that their ashes would purify Israel and help redeem the world" (quoted by Idinopulos and Ward, op. cit., p. 211). In Shapiro's place, I doubt that I would be able to offer anything better. Note that the Hebrew prophets, not quoted in Divine Principle rather continuously decry the sins of Israel, in the most degrading terms. The Israelites were totally evil. God was going to crush them to powder and destroy them, almost. I realize here and regarding the Holocaust, it is one thing for someone Jewish to say Jews have failed or sinned. It is another matter for a non-Jew to say it. (Cf. the discussion later on the use of "the Jews" in the New Testament). But does it then become anti-Semitic? "What (is required) of the Christian is not better theology but better deeds. One hopes that Christians will cease using their cross as a battle-axe against Jews. Or as the Jewish theologian Eliezer Barkowitz puts it, "All we want of Christians is that they keep their hands off us and our children," Idinopulos and Ward, op. cit. p. 210. The reversal of course should also be true that the star of David should not become a weapon against Christian and Muslim Arabs, and that Jews and others should keep their hands off the Moonies.
The reversal is also true in who says what. My reaction differs when a Catholic or Protestant says Jesus' messiahship was invented by the Church and when Jews say it or when they call Christianity an ersatz religion or a pseudo-messianic movement. Cf. David Singer, "The Jewish Messiah: A contemporary Commentary," Midstream May 73, p. 5. Vermes, op. cit., p. 155. It would be understandable if the Holocaust now becomes a battle-axe. "Yet, when cross or Holocaust is so used, it degrades the faith that claims to remember for it shows the users have forgotten what that faith is all about. They make the good into evil and the evil they call good. They fail the minimal ethic of "Do not do unto others that which is hurtful for thyself," substituting the more common standard of the world of "Do unto others as others have done unto you." Unfortunately this is not simple revenge but taking it out on innocent people and perpetuating the evil through the generations. It is time to stop the evil and start practicing our Jewish and Christian faith such as the Jewish Bible's suggestion that we love our neighbor.
68. Leslie D. Weatherhead, The Will of God (NY: Abingdon Press, 1972), distinguished God's intentional will from his circumstantial will from his ultimate will. The intentional and the ultimate will are for good. Circumstantial will is God's will in the face of evil. Like Rev. Moon, English Methodist Weatherhead did not believe God intended that Jesus should die on the cross (p.12).
69. Op. cit. He overlooks here the Second Coming, a prominent doctrine in various periods of Christian history, including the present. The First Coming was somehow incomplete, i.e., a failure, or there would be no need for a Second. The idea that the Jews did not accept or agree with the messiahship of Jesus is common Christian and Jewish doctrine. Historically of course, all of the first followers of Jesus were Jews.
Lara-Braud is Presbyterian. The Presbyterian or Calvinist doctrine of double predestination has been called double indemnity. This doctrine says God has predestined who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell. There is no choice; there is nothing we can do about it. I've not met a believer in this doctrine who did not know where he was going to as well as where all the rest of us were going. Double indemnity indeed. If Lara-Braud is sincere in his concern, he is condemning his own tradition. If I may be permitted an unscholarly remark, I say it's about time. But why now divert this evil doctrine and blame the Unification Church for it? While it's true that Rev. Moon's family converted to Presbyterianism when he was ten years old, his teaching is that all will be saved. Ultimately no one will be able to withstand the wonderful love of God forever, not even the anti-Moonies. It is universalism rather than Presbyterianism's traditional eternal damnation of all the rest of us. Lara-Braud appears to be refusing to take responsibility for his own tradition. Were non-Anglo-Saxons ever included among the Elect? Personally I believe God loves all people. We should also. To hate others, whether Moonies or Hispanics or Presbyterians is a denial of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Some Hispanics are Moonies and some are Presbyterians.
70. "Divine Principle and the Second Advent," CC XCIV No. 17 (11 May 77), pp. 448-451.
71. Singer, op. cit., p. 11. Islam is another tradition that insists on man's responsibility.
72. The Many Faces of Anti-Semitism, op. cit., p. 35, also sets anti-Semitism in the context of this larger evil and notes, "Man now has the means to destroy himself; if he is to keep from doing so, he must learn quickly to restrain his destructiveness and strengthen his humanitarian instincts." I can agree with this pragmatism as with Yaseen, op. cit., even while maintaining quite simply that anti-Semitism and similar evils are wrong. They violate human decency and the heart and soul of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
73. The Lamp. Strober, op. cit., pp. 30-31, notes an interesting phenomenon. "Conservative Protestants lay particular stress on the individual's relationship to Jesus; yet... cannot perceive the Jewish response to Jesus as a matter of individual decision." That is, neither the 'Jews' nor the 'other Jews,' but simply individual Jews, individual people, are involved.
74. Vermes, op. cit., p. 155.
75. Strober, op. cit., p. 29. Yiseen, op. cit.
76. Singer, op. cit., pp. 6-7. This article is also interesting for its claim that Jesus appears as most decidedly "un-Jewish" while Vermes, op. cit. ,fits Jesus neatly and merely into the Jewish charismatic movement. One assumes the CFO would have difficulty with both of these views of Jesus.
77. Cf. Rodney Stark and Charles Y Glock, American Piety (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1968), p. 209.
78. The Eisenbergs, op. cit.
79. The TV program "All in the Family" has bigoted remarks about many groups, apparently with the implication that that makes it alright. Others disagree. Cf. Forster and Epstein, op. cit., pp. 114ff, and John Slawson, "How Funny Can Bigotry Be?," Education Broadcasting Review, Ap 72. Reprint. For the Hebrew Scriptures as anti-Semitic see Israel Zangwill's remark quoted by Louis Jacobs, A Jewish Theology (NY: Behrman House, 1973), p. 273.
80. Quoted by the Eisenbergs, op. cit. Note that it would be more accurate to say "The first individuals to accept him were Jewish." The implications of the "yet" is that someday "the Jews" will or should. Some Jews might take issue with this. Note also the collective judgment in "our corporate humanity," which echoes in Rev. Moon's statements below, and in Strober, op. cit., p. 33. To repeat, Jesus the Jew was crucified by Roman soldiers under Roman authority. Such authorities crucified thousands of Jews.
81. The New Future of Christianity (Washington: Unification Church International, 1974), pp. 87f
82. Olson points out also that Christianity picked up all the Old Testament heroes for Christianity while all the villains were ascribed to Judaism.
83. Note that "mainstream" Christianity also believes Jesus "failed." From within the faith, I would say the Christians in general have failed. Instead of diverting their sins or projecting their sins onto others, Christians might rather repent and reform.
84. The New Future..., p. 111 notes that "American Christianity today is in the spiritual position of Israel 2,000 years ago. America is destined to serve as the Messiah's landing site for the 20th century... America's role is parallel to that of the Roman Empire of 2,000 years ago. "On p. 42 he notes, " America herself can be heaven." America must "realize God's ideal here on earth." On p. 126 he says, "This New York shall be His Kingdom, too." This would appear to restrict the Second Israel in the present age to American Christianity. The failure of this Second Israel is not yet a foregone conclusion. Korea and the Third Israel are not mentioned in this text.
There are reflections here of America and the Promised Land. Rice, op. cit., p. 36 claims this is why Rev. Moon came to the U. S. The idea is at least as old as the Puritans. It surely appeared that way to many of America's immigrants. The concept lies behind 19th century Manifest Destiny doctrine and the present day Civil Religion. Cf. further Robert N. Bellah, The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial (NY: Seabury Press, 1975). American Indians have a different perspective.
While the CFO report, op. cit., p. 10, objects to facile identification of nations as good or bad (an objection with which I agree), the practice is as old as nationhood and more. In the Near East, some Zionists claim God has given them the land. They characterized their actions as defensive while the Palestinians are terrorists. Some Palestinians see their activities as defensive while the Israelis are the terrorists.
85. On p. 147 of Divine Principle is the statement that since the time of Jesus, "the Jews have lost their qualification as the chosen people and have been scattered, suffering persecution through the present day." Historically, the Diaspora began over 600 years before Jesus and pre-Christian anti-Semitism is well attested. Note too that this statement does not explain the continuance of the Jewish people or the Jewish faith. According to some Christian interpreters, both should have disappeared with the arrival of the Messiah. However, the biblical covenant is forever.
86. Bernard J. Bamberger proposes Jewish authorship. Cf. his "Adam, Books of," IDB I (1962), pp. 44f.
86A. Eileen Barker, "Who Would Be a Moonie?," WSI, op. cit.
87. Ruether, op. cit. Cf. the similar thought of Glock and Stark, op. cit., p. xvi, "historically it is clear that the heart and soul of anti-Semitism rested in Christianity." Cf. also Charlotte Klein, Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).
88. Idinopulos and Ward, op. cit., pp. 193-214. Strober, op. cit., p. 52, says the negative view of Judaism can be traced back to "the infant church. It was solidified between 240 and 450 A. D. and continuously expanded and elaborated in each of the subsequent centuries. Its formation probably was influenced by New Testament concepts and phraseology. However, in its substance it would seem to stem, not from Scripture itself, but from interpretations of scripture by authoritative spokesmen of the nascent Church."
89. "In the Church's closet..." (his italics). Barth, Jesus the Jew (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978).
90. They note that anti-Semitism was in the world before Christianity appeared, as noted above. Cf. also Ruether, op. cit., ch. 1. On the New Testament, cf. also Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978). He answers his own question, '"Yes!"
91. S. Scott Bartchy, "How Much Freedom Can You Stand?," Radix 9, No. 1 (July-Aug 77), 22-23. This may be background for Paul's Galatians 3:28.
92. Vermes, op. cit., pp. 54-55. Yiseen, op. cit., notes that "Christianity has no need to degrade any other religion in order to validate itself." Christian anti-Semitism suggests some Christians have not yet learned this. The very existence of an ACM suggests the same, expanded to include Judaism. Heim, op. cit., p. 448, takes note of the urgency with which mainliners have rushed to cast aspersions on the devotion of Unification Church members, though it does not appear overly different from a traditional Jesuit seminary or a charismatic community. He sees something wildly ironic about Christians protesting Unification Church members turning over their worldly goods to the Church as though this were something sinister. He sees it as a fear by mainliners that Unification Church theology may be true. I agree wholeheartedly on the irony. Once upon a time, devotion was considered good. I disagree with Heim that Divine Principle must be rejected on theological grounds. To reject Divine Principle en toto is to reject a great deal of the Bible and Church history. What we must do is learn to "live and let live" with Unification Church doctrine even as we have the hundreds of other religious groups in our pluralistic society. As Tanenbaum points out, we are all free to express ourselves in the marketplace of ideas (cf. n. 33 earlier). That freedom should include the freedom of the UC. I suspect also that the devotion of Unification Church members is felt as a judgment by traditional Jewish and Christian groups. The bulk of our members do not exhibit such devotion to God or to our groups.
Of course, degrading others is a common human trait. It is an ersatz way of claiming superiority or company in one's misery, i.e., "I may not be OK but you're not either!" Cf. Thomas A. Harris, I'm OK-You're OK (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1973). Harris 'title indicates the healthy perspective. Cf. the earlier discussion on our sick society and our sick religions.
93. The Rudins, "The Jews for Jesus...," p. 19. Lyles, op. cit., p. 707
94. Claiborne, op. cit. White op. cit. My historical mind reflects on the Reformation. Catholics and Protestants were busy fighting each other but they stopped, formed an alliance, slaughtered the Anabaptists -- and then went back to killing each other... A report from Uganda says Catholics and Protestants have stopped fighting each other. They stand together against the Muslims. Abraham M. Murray suggests "There must be a better road to Christian unity." "A View of the World," Worldview 21, No. 5 (May 78), 33-34. So Christians and Jews stop fighting each other long enough to fight the Unification Church. How sad... Robert Ell wood, Jr., suggests a lack of even a rudimentary sense of history among many of the studies of new religions. NB, p. 270. Those attacking new religions are often attacking their own history.
95. Kim, op. cit., pp. 284, 286.
96. Mane Jahoda, "What is prejudice?," Look (24 May '60). Offprint. Gordon W Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958). Harris, op. cit.
97. Singer, op. cit., p. 10. This contrasts with the Talmudic emphasis on human sinfulness, a reflection of the biblical concept that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. By the standards used to judge Divine Principle, the Talmud could be accused of being anti-Semitic, along with the Jewish Bible.
98. Cf. Piazza, op. cit. James Parkes' "Verdict on Father Daniel," explores some of the issues, p. 78-91, in Parkes' Prelude to Dialogue, op. cit. Father Daniels was the son of a Jewish mother so he applied for citizenship as a Jew under the Israeli "Law of Return." The Israeli Supreme Court denied him citizenship because he had converted to Christianity. American Black Jews were also denied citizenship. Cf. Diamond,. So too the Falashas, the Black Jews of Ethiopia. Here is a horror story that matches the Nazi Holocaust or at least Leon Uris' novel, The Exodus. As the British kept Jewish survivors of the Nazi death camps out of Palestine, so news reports say the Zionists now keep out the Jewish survivors of Ethiopia's wars and starvation. What an incredibly brutal repetition of man's inhumanity to man. As the song, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" asks, "When will we ever learn?" Cf. Susanne Jackson Levy, "The Falashas of Ethiopia: God's Lost People." CCXCVIII, No. 22(18 July '81), pp. 704-706. Note that this holocaust is not something that happened 40 or 50 years ago. It is going on now. Israel and America could open its doors wide to these poor people. Their black skin is irrelevant. The horrors of history are being repeated by Jews and Christians alike. Anti-Semitism indeed. Racism indeed. Double indemnity indeed.
99. One humorous response to the CFO declaration was that of course when the Protestants got a pope, it would be a committee!
100. Quoted by the Inter-religious Newsletter, 1, No. 3 (May 77), 8.
101. Cotton Mather said "Religion brought forth prosperity and the daughter destroyed the mother." Quoted by Lawrence A. Cremin, Traditions in American Education (NY: Basic Books, 1977), p. 23. Personally, I think the economic and political power theory makes more sense for the origins of anti-Semitism. It started out as a family feud with both sides violating their essence as a faith and a people. When the daughter got power, she (Christianity) used it against her mother (Judaism). Economic greed, rape and scapegoating were strong contributing factors. As Lord Acton noted long ago, power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
102. This of course is what Rudin accuses the Unification Church of providing.
103. This is UC doctrine which Lara-Braud's committee finds objectionable.
104. On the threat of bureaucracy, cf. Richard L. Rubenstein, The Cunning of History; (NY: Harper and Row, 1975).
105. "Religious Education...," pp. 159-161. 166-167, 169. Harvey Cox has "warned against a 'too easy tolerance' trivializing important differences among traditions... Cox called for a theory of unification that 'accepts without relativizing' other traditions." The Cornerstone I, No. 10 (Ap 77), p. 3.
106. Unification Church members feel hurt from the attacks of others, including Tanenbaum's.
107. "Do You Know What Hurts Me?," op. cit.
108. The CFO report, op. cit., p. 2.
109. "My Dream Concerning Seminary Education," The Cornerstone I, No. 8 (Feb 77), pp. 5-6.
110. Kim, Unification Thought..., op. cit., p. 284.
111. "Do You Know What Hurts Me?," op. cit. Tanenbaum and Kim are not the only ones who share common concerns. As noted earlier, the Unification Church believes God is planning the Restoration. He calls the Unification Church and all his people to work for this cause. Stanley N. Rosenbaum says we "Jews accept the impossible task of redeeming" the world. Cf. his "What to Do Until the Messiah Comes: On Jewish Worldliness," CC 99, No. 39 (8 Dec '82), pp. 1251-1254. It is time to work together. Let us begin.