Foundations

14. Nothing Exists without the Family

Rev. Moon always emphasizes that, “I would never exist without the family; the society, nation or the world would not exist without the family.” The religions up until now had not taken the family so seriously, but after the discovery of the four-position foundation, we began to place importance on the family.

Therefore, life in the Church is one family centered on the Word, and we must reflect and observe just how much that family has established the heart-centered foundation. If you came in through an Abel, you should only have one Abel, and the Abels of others are not your Abel. You have only one Abel to go through.

The causes (motivation) that we mutually possess differ. When a baby is born, he comes through one mother. In the same way we must find the course through which we must be born into heaven’s sphere of dominion, and treat it most preciously. We must make it our life. This is the family problem. Thus, by making the foundation of faith centered on Abel and making the foundation of substance next, the foundation of parents of faith – that is, the foundation for the messiah – can be built.

John the Baptist blew the trumpet, but he had to stand in front of the congregation, the people he had organized, in the position of parents, and he had to unite with the Messiah. The archangel did not carry out the mission of parents, because he did not know Abel. This means he did not know the position of Jesus, the position of the Messiah, and did not follow him.

We need not worry about external things so much, just work on your personality centered on the family, on the Word, and just have the warm feeling, the deep emotionality, the intimate connection with others ... that’s all you need. Therefore, the purpose of our work is to see just how much depth we achieve together, emotionally. The purpose of work is not work itself. Therefore, when you go fundraising, that is not its purpose. The problem is how we persevere no matter how much bitterness we will have, for the purpose of history. We must search for this bitterness, this grudge. To find out just what kind of bitterness God had toward what kind of men, we go out witnessing. Through. this we become brothers in bitterness. God’s bitterness. We must know that there is just too much bitterness. And any of you who do not feel animosity aroused in learning about this bitterness should not be going this way, because you’d be only trying to understand things with your own intelligence, logically or psychologically, externally in the archangel’s way. Thus you must really feel hostility toward sin. You must be persons who always have the fighting spirit, the hostility inside your heart, and it must be such that even a little incident will make you cry with tears. Rev. Moon also said that we must hide the bitterness, the sadness of God inside so that even a little thing will provoke its explosion.

Walking alone, you would not talk about your sadness, it cannot be discussed with anyone. And when you’re witnessing you must know just how much the enemy has got you surrounded. The same can be said for brothers and sisters .....

We must know that those who are going this way of the Principle without fully comprehending the Divine Principle will someday become an enemy of God. These people will someday come to have a different purpose than the rest of us. Peter said he’d risk his life for Jesus without knowing just what he had said. But in the end, we saw that he had a different purpose. Therefore, Rev. Moon said that Church members who do not know the Principle will one day become his enemies.

The problems are how do we come to know the Principle, what connections do we have, just how are we to digest our own position in the Principle, and just how are we going to acquire our ability to control, etc.

Unless such things are clear within a person, we can see that there is a possibility that someday his own thinking, his self-will, selfishness, will dominate him, and he’ll become selfish from his own standpoint. This can be seen by observing him and his emotional relationships.

Whether it is the relationship of the husband and wife, or that of the family, if there is more than one possessing the relationship, then the life of that family will become shortened. So just how much consciousness do we have about the Cain and Abel thought, and just how much connection exists heartistically between brothers and sisters who have strong hostilities toward our enemy. This is the course to restore from Satan all the way back to God, and all around us exist enemies.

There is nobody that will help, Cain and Abel can easily become enemies. They were both the same thing with the same purpose, but only one was blessed for his offering. When the other did not support then there was a great amount of animosity built up. One may even kill. This is history. This also is the way we have been going. We are going in our mission quite happily, but if one of us comes to be in the position to be loved by God, how joyfully can others follow? Maybe it is we – family members of the Church – who can become enemies easily. We must reflect and repent on this point.

The problem is how we give and take with the Principle, how we digest it, and with whom do we digest it. It is dangerous to digest it all by yourself. Digest it with the Abel. But which Abel? Cain’s original heart was directed toward separation from his fallen parents and going back toward God, restoring himself back to God but he didn’t have enough hostility toward evil, toward sin. Because he didn’t have hostility toward evil, he had unpleasant feelings and maybe he complained to his mother and others who had to come to God through Cain. Cain went toward God, but since he complained about the person he was to follow, those who had to follow Cain couldn’t do so any more. If you complain to those who must follow you, they may think it’s natural. If give and take and discussion is not done in accordance with God’s dispensation it is because there isn’t enough hostility (toward sin).

Faith & Life by Rev. Yo Han Lee (1977)