The Applied Unificationism blog welcomes the spirited discussion of the new Cheon Il Guk Constitution with two articles by Graham Simon and Gordon Anderson (UTS Class of 1978). Because of the importance of this topic, I feel motivated to frame this discussion a bit. While the Unification Movement aspires to restore a physical nation, at this time this “Constitution” is in reality governing a religious organization and a spiritual community. It might be more appropriate to call it a “CIG Charter” and to compare it with the laws of governance for other religious communities around the world. In any case, I invite readers to consider views with which they may or may not agree in the spirit of “true love.”
Sincerely, Richard Panzer, President, UTS/Barrytown College
By Graham Simon
The Cheon Il Guk (CIG) Constitution was officially proclaimed on Foundation Day 2014 and was intended to “enter into force sixty days thereafter,” on April 11.
That day passed with little notice.
Might the CIG Constitution have an impact on our lives and the way the Unification family organizes itself in the immediate future? Looking further ahead, will it have an effect on the lives of our descendants or humankind as a whole?
Let us assume that the Principle and True Parents’ teachings become the fundamental bedrock of a future world order, that they resonate with humankind’s inner nature to the extent that their universal acceptance is no longer a question of “if,” but “when.”
Note: This post originally appeared on our blog on August 19, 2013. The author has written a Post-UK Symposium on the CIG Constitution Update after the article’s conclusion.
By Gordon L. Anderson
The passing last September of Rev. Sun Myung Moon marked the end of an era for the Unification Movement, not unlike the passing of Moses or Jesus. The followers left behind have to fashion a society that embodies the teaching and spirit of the founder. Under the charismatic leadership of Rev. Moon, governance was on the level of a community or tribal society. Now, a new center of new legitimate authority must be established for this community. In addition, the vision for Cheon Il Guk (CIG) also aspires to national and global aspects that transcend the community-level society members have known. The membership now has to define and routinize the authority of the movement after the founder’s passing.
The role of a constitution is to establish the purpose, nature of authority, and distribution of power in a society. Regardless of how the CIG Constitution is developed, it will be an important document related to the rise or decline of the Unification society, because people will voluntarily join or leave it. To expand and solidify a society that embodies the founder’s values, the benefits of membership, on the whole, should outweigh the costs; otherwise people will not join or remain members.
Levels of Governance
Societies contain several levels of social organization, with the main levels being: family, community, state, and world. A community consists of several families, a state of several communities, and a world of several states.
By Andrew Lausberg
Since its release, the film “Noah” has generated a wide variety of responses. Reviews range from declarations of triumph to the dismissal of abject failure. This is not so unusual, but it does bring into focus the contrast between perspectives that prevail over religious topics in the world today.
As Unificationists, we have a strong desire to see enlightenment in the world. We know there is a much deeper level to God’s message to the world as it has been presented in history over millennia. We also know God is alive, that God can speak, and that the spirit world is constantly active in its interactions with humanity.
What can we learn from the film “Noah”? The recent film review by Andrew Wilson points directly to some potential learnings, in his reflection on the limitations of patriarchal religion and how the film highlights these. From a slightly different perspective, “Noah” also points the way to how Unificationists might present the value of the Principle in ways the current generation can accept and benefit from.
As a film, “Noah” is powerfully appealing in presentation. The special effects are top-notch, the location work and settings are spectacular, and the acting capable. There are many elements that reflect unique, cutting-edge forms of creativity, which in and of themselves are highly attractive to today’s generation (Gen Y and Gen X).
By Kwon Jin Moon
I really enjoy listening to theoretical physicists. They are the rock stars of the physics world. They’re not people who simply conceive of a world, but actually the ones who create the world. We all whip out our smartphones and enjoy the World Wide Web. But they’re the ones that created the Web.
One of my favorite theoretical physicists is Japanese-American bestselling author, Professor Michio Kaku. He divides the world and universe and the billions and billions of stars into three types of civilizations.
The first is a planetary-type civilization. This is one which harnesses planetary powers. It controls earthquakes, volcanoes, and taps the power of the sun. And although utilizing tremendous resources, it lives harmoniously with the planet — the mark of a Type I planetary civilization.
The second is stellar-type civilizations. The United Federation of Planets in Star Trek is an example. This type controls stars. It harnesses the power of stars and as a civilization, is immortal. They can survive comets or asteroids, even supernovas.
Type III civilizations are galactic. They truly wield the power of the universe. Examples would be the Borg in Star Trek or the Galactic Empire in Star Wars.
But there’s a different type of planetary civilization. That civilization is Type Zero. That’s what we are.
By Andrew Wilson
The new film “Noah,” starring Russell Crowe, has received mixed reviews. It partakes of the dark dystopian and apocalyptic spirit of so many contemporary Hollywood movies that is a turn-off to people seeking more wholesome and family-oriented fare. But if you sit through it, you will at least be rewarded with an encounter with some serious theology.
This is no simple-minded Bible movie. Director Darren Aronofsky said it is “the least biblical movie ever made.” He takes considerable liberties, including not giving Noah’s three sons each a wife to accompany them in the ark and portraying the Nephilim (Gen. 6:4) as Transformer-like rock monsters that defend Noah and help him build the ark. He makes the villain, Tubal-Cain, a stowaway in the ark and gives him some fine lines where he declares his resentment against God for abandoning humanity to destruction. Many Christian fundamentalists will take offense.
But adherents of the Divine Principle can find much to cheer about.
by David Stewart
In a sermon I gave in Kiev in late 1991, I warned that the Israelites, upon escaping slavery in Egypt, still had to endure 40 years of suffering in the desert. So it has been for the Ukraine since the break-up of the Soviet Union. I had arrived there as a missionary a few months before and would stay in Kiev until the end of 1994, when my family moved to Moscow.
Warning of a potentially troubled future, I was reminded of the words of Leon Trotsky: “The Ukrainian question, which many…have tried to forget or to relegate to the deep strongbox of history…is destined in the immediate future to play an enormous role in the life of Europe.” Despite its own desires, Ukraine remains caught between two powers far greater than itself – Europe and Russia.
In December 1991, I witnessed Lenin’s massive head finally separated from his shoulders, hanging motionless from a crane above us at October Square (now Independence Square) in Kiev. The wildly cheering crowd was bursting with hope this would be the beginning of the end of Lenin’s communist legacy and the start of real freedom and a brighter future.
Ukraine had suffered the horrors of Stalin’s “dekulakization,” forced famine, the Holodomor (1932-33 extermination by hunger, with up to 10 million dead), “Russification,” the horrors of World War II (up to seven million Ukrainian dead), and life after the war under the heel of Moscow. It just wanted to be free and decide its own future.
By Larry Moffitt
I don’t approve of the way the argument over evolution has evolved. Darwin thoroughly yanked the chain of collective Christianity regarding natural selection.
And suddenly, by the standards of Christianity at that time, it became mandatory that an evolutionist also be an atheist.
However, Darwin was also a gnarly racist, claiming superiority of white over black. And he was a sexist, writing in his autobiography, “the average mental power in man must be above that of women.” Oddly, these two notions didn’t bother the Christian establishment one bit in 1859. That’s the part of Darwin they liked. Robber barons like J. D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, along with Karl Marx and Hitler, liked those parts as well, in addition to natural selection. Bummer.
Today, most religious people accept that a faster wolf will catch more bunnies and give birth to better bunny hunters, and that Leonardo Da Vinci’s kid was probably a good artist too. The original burr under the saddle of Christianity is a non-issue these days