Providential Necessity of the Only Begotten Daughter


By Andrew Wilson

No doubt the years since True Father passed have been difficult for True Mother. But it should not surprise anyone that her course would be difficult. As the Original Eve, she is the pioneer for the entire female gender. She has obstacles to overcome that are uniquely her cross, which True Father, as a man, did not have to deal with. Proclaiming herself the Only Begotten Daughter is her way of directly facing this task.

Mother has no victorious representative of womankind as her feminine forbearer. In fact, she alone carries the burden of all the pain of womankind through history, going back to Eve. Mother has to deal with the fact that after the Fall there was no respect for Eve whatsoever. People have a better feeling about Adam; he was somehow redeemed by Jesus as the victorious Second Adam. But not Eve. She was always associated with the Fall and failure.

At the Fall, Adam was brought low because he followed Eve. The woman led the man to ruin. This led to the widespread view that no woman is worthy to be the leader of men. As a result, fallen societies always put men on top, while women were treated miserably, even as the man’s property to do with as he wished.

To make matters worse, this patriarchal attitude belittling women was inscribed in scripture, which led believers to justify it as if it were God’s way. The Bible, after all, was written by men. We search the Bible in vain to find the name of Noah’s wife, Lot’s wife, or the names of Adam and Eve’s daughters. No angel stayed the hand of Jephthah when he offered his daughter as a human sacrifice (Judg. 11:34-40), the way it stayed the hand of Abraham when he was about to slay Isaac. Polygamy became a norm, the atrocious practice even perpetuated in the modern era.

Men made things worse than they needed to be, continuing to harshly judge women while making themselves the arbiters of faith despite their own wrongdoing, and thinking their attitude justified by scripture. Such male attitudes towards women continue to this day.

They think that because men like Moses or Muhammad went out into the wilderness to find God, women who stay in the kitchen don’t have the same access to the Divine. Or that since Jesus Christ was a man, only men have the holiness to be his representatives. We see it in churches that do not permit women to be priests or pastors.

This has given a tremendous burden to all women, and to True Mother in particular. The burden persists, because despite that True Parents restored the mistakes of Adam and Eve and declared the opening of the Age of Women, the church never operated under women’s leadership, or gave women respect and authority equal to that of men. True Mother carries that cross, having taken the reins as a true woman leader despite the persistence of patriarchal attitudes among humankind and even among church members.

Christianity named Eve a sinner, and taught that the only way womankind can find value is to unite with the male Messiah, who came to shed his blood on the cross for our sins. Believers in the Unification Church who kept to that mindset thought that True Mother’s fundamental value was as the Bride of the Lord of the Second Advent. Coupled with the patriarchal attitude that men should be the arbiters of all matters of God and faith, they regarded True Mother as only Father’s object, follower and supporter. With the exception of her role as the mother of the lineage, they didn’t see her as fully a True Parent.

Hence, when True Mother began her own ministry and determined to edit the Cheon Seong Gyeong, they bristled at the idea, accusing her of violating True Father’s instructions. They failed to recognize that True Mother is a True Parent in every sense, and therefore she has the full authority of True Parents to edit the Cheon Seong Gyeong to polish the jewels of True Fathers’ words.

Those patriarchal attitudes may have been justified in the era of restoration. But they are not appropriate for the era of Cheon Il Guk, the time to institute God’s original ideal based on the Principle of Creation.

At this time, there needs to be a fundamental revolution in attitudes towards women. Providentially, God intends for this to happen, and for this reason True Mother was born 23 years later than True Father. This period of True Mother’s leadership is part of God’s providential plan.

In the world that operates according to the Principle of Creation, the four-position foundation is established based on the three objects purpose where any of the four positions can take the subject role vis á vis the other three. Now, with True Mother taking the subject role because she is on earth, she has the love and support of True Father in heaven as well as Heavenly Parent. In their eternal bond of love there is equality of love, participation and inheritance.

Because the church that so honored her late husband has had difficulty adjusting to her leadership after his passing, True Mother understood she needed to affirm her own merit. That is why it is providentially important she lift up the title “Only Begotten Daughter.” As Only Begotten Daughter, Mother’s value is for who she is, not only because of who Father is. She needs to claim this position and stand on it to take a firm hand in leading a church steeped in patriarchal culture.

This title is a rebuke to those who still regard True Mother’s value as entirely because she served and attended True Father. By taking on the title of Only Begotten Daughter, she desires to change members’ mindsets so they never again have a basis to belittle her status or dispute her authority.

True Mother’s Cross to Liberate Womankind

All women have inherent value which is every bit equal to the value of men. They deserve to live and find fulfillment without being belittled or abused by men. More than that, they are no longer willing to take it for granted that it is a man’s world and their purpose is mainly to support their men and find value in producing and raising sons.

Furthermore, women have a different perspective on life than men do. Their love is feminine love, rooted in the feminine side of God—in Heavenly Mother. So is their thinking. Yet, too often their intellectual insights as well as emotions are belittled by men, who are accustomed to only considering a man’s point of view in dealing with life’s essential challenges.

It is no accident that all over the world women are rising up and making their voices heard. This worldwide phenomenon is occurring at the same time True Mother is standing up to patriarchy and taking the reins of leadership in the Unification Movement. Women are stepping forward, often at great risk, to assert that their dignity and value as God’s daughters is equal to that of men as God’s sons.


Mrs. Hak Ja Han Moon addresses participants at the 23rd International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (ICUS) in Seoul on Feb. 4, 2017.

The road to women attaining their full value has been rocky and fraught with setbacks. Women do not automatically reap the rewards of this new Age of Women. Any shortcoming is likely to be magnified, and a woman who aspires for leadership may have to work twice as hard as men to earn people’s respect.

When True Mother says she is God’s Only Begotten Daughter, she is taking a stand for the value of all women as God’s daughters. Her thorny path to establish that position amidst persecution from within the Unification movement is fundamental to women everywhere realizing their full value.

I hope that in the future the Family Federation will speak out more about this issue, proclaiming True Mother’s work as uplifting women everywhere. True Mother’s struggle is not only an internal matter. In fact, she is riding a cosmic wave of feminine uplift that is moving throughout the world.

The Providence of the Only Begotten Daughter

Some sincere Unificationists are uncomfortable with the title Only Begotten Daughter because it speaks to a prior stage in True Mother’s life before she became True Parents. The True Mother we know and love is not just a daughter of God. By joining with True Father, after all, she rose to the noble position of the Great Mother of humankind.

Nevertheless, while she could have rested comfortably on her position as True Mother, Hak Ja Han has chosen to proclaim herself the Only Begotten Daughter. It would have been easy to always be called True Mother and lean upon True Father’s broad shoulders. Yet, despite personal cost, she chooses a title that expresses her own value independently of True Father. Our faith is to honor her intention in proclaiming herself thus, trusting there is a providential reason why Heavenly Mother is prompting her to proclaim it, for the fulfillment of the Will.

In fact, the proclamation of the Only Begotten Daughter furthers the providence to secure the establishment of the age of women. It is True Mother’s mission to overcome the entrenched patriarchy of the fallen world to establish the true equality of genders as required by the Principle of Creation. What better way to lance that particular boil on the deformed, sin-sick body of humankind than to stand up and say, “I am the Only Begotten Daughter. Follow me!”

Therefore, when men lovingly and faithfully attend the Only Begotten Daughter, they are taking steps to restore equality and balance to a humanity that throughout history has been ruled by archangelic men. They are affirming that Eve has restored her dominion over the Archangel. Further, they assuage the painful and frustrated heart of Heavenly Mother, who has been trampled on, insulted and abused throughout history.

By setting up True Mother to be 23 years younger than True Father, Heavenly Parent made sure that after his passing she would be in the position to lead the church and carry out this important mission. She could not begin it while True Father was still alive, but God arranged it so that after her husband’s death she could begin it and fulfill it.

Now she has begun. By proclaiming herself the Only Begotten Daughter, she is taking care of the business of the providence, even at great personal hardship.♦

Part II of a two-part article. Part I can be read here.

Dr. Andrew Wilson (UTS Class of 1978) is Professor of Scriptural Studies at Unification Theological Seminary. He edited World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts and World Scripture and the Teachings of Sun Myung Moon.

14 thoughts on “Providential Necessity of the Only Begotten Daughter

Add yours

  1. Thank you for this essential expression of the continued unfolding of the providential will. It is the hope of every sincere Unificationist that healing and honor be restored to our True Family centered upon True Parents.

  2. Many people (included members of the UM) are keeping in their hands some kind of checklist to see if True Mother will make a mistake. If I were in their shoes, I would spend my time to check my life first. After all, the first fallen nature written in the DP is “not to be able to see from God’s viewpoint.”

  3. Dr. Wilson,

    There were victorious representative feminine forbearers in the Providence; in particular, Tamar, Sarah and Rebekah. Their stories are elucidated in Old Testament scripture, the Divine Principle and in True Father’s speeches. These women played significant roles in the Providence that bring out the kind of model challenges that the bride of the Lord of the Second Advent would necessarily have to face. These challenges would be horizontally reenacted in parallel courses of restoration through indemnity. In the parallel course of feminine forbearer reenactments of providential history, True Mother would fulfill her portion of responsibility securing the true Mother’s heart on the path of becoming an equal partner to the returning Messiah.

    True Mother in her lifetime would come to understand the unfathomable challenges and responsibilities that Tamar, Sarah and Rebekah would accomplish in their respective courses.

    Tamar would be asked to play the role of a harlot in order to prolong the family bloodline. Sarah would deceptively play the role of Abraham’s sister at the risk of her life on two separate occasions. And, she would be a silent partner as her husband took their only son, Isaac, up the mountain to be a burned sacrifice. Rebekah would play the most complex model role for women — having to deceive both her aging husband, Isaac, and her son, Esau, to advance providential restoration. Esau was said to be hated by God while in the womb and he lost his inheritance by his Mother’s sleight of hand. The crestfallen son was enraged by the deception and determined to take revenge on Jacob. Nevertheless, Rebekah skillfully plays the behind-the-scenes role to bring about reconciliation between her two sons. First, she saved Jacob from being killed by his brother; then, with embracing Mother’s love, she influences Esau (Cain position), to forgive, love and unite with Jacob (Abel position) after a harrowing 21 year separation.

    As it seems, True Mother has acted in the likeness or resemblance of these historical feminine forbearers.

    1. Robert,

      In traditional patriarchal societies women like Tamar and Rebekah had to act deceptively and work behind the scenes to try to manage a good outcome for their sons. But these experiences are limited, because women were always subordinate to menfolk. None of these women stood on the pinnacle of leadership where True Mother stands today. So her course is truly a pioneering one.

      Meanwhile, there are members who believe that Mother should remain in the position of a bride to the Lord of the Second Advent, having no status apart from what he bequeaths to her. That was indeed the situation of those feminine forebearers. But do we expect True Mother to keep to that? Those who do would want her to resign to make way for a male heir, based on the traditional patriarchal model that only men are fit to lead. So your examples only highlight how inadequate that biblical and providential foundation is for Mother to stand up and say, “I am the Only Begotten Daughter.”

      As the only True Parent living in the physical world, and as an individual embodiment of truth in her own right who manifests the divine feminine on earth, True Mother’s value is far greater than a bride who is measured by her husband’s status.

      You seem to say that Mother became Father’s equal. Yet even now Mother is not treated as Father’s equal — certainly not as having equal authority. Anything Mother says is pored over by some members looking for mistakes; she takes new steps to advance the providence and some grumble. How painful this situation is to Mother, we cannot imagine.

      1. Dr. Wilson

        I see your point. The weight of Korean (Confucian) patriarchal history that enslaved women for millennia would have to carried by True Mother. There is the collective indemnity condition that had to be restored. The reversal of position by dominating Chinese, Korean, Japanese (Asian) men and the obedient Asian women who enabled the tradition. True Mother would face opposition and criticism from both men and women who unequivocally expected a male heir. The stories of Tamar and Rebekah would shed but a dim light on the course that True Mother would walk.

        We can only look to historical Korean dramas on the kinds of infighting that took place to marry into the royal family. The proclamation of “I am the only begotten daughter” was a tipping point unlike earlier transition points. True Father often made statements of their equal status yet continued to exercise control over all major decisions. Announcement after announcement of the equal authority of True Mother fell on deaf ears — among many of the elder Korean disciples and three True Children sons.

        Foreshadowed by the establishment of the original Day of Victory of Love, it is for this reason that a filial son (HyoJN) would be sent suddenly to the spiritual world. How excruciatingly painful this situation is to Mother, we cannot imagine.

  4. Historically, the concept of “only begotten” — whether son or daughter — seems to belong to the Early Church, particularly at or during periods of upheaval and controversy.

    The continuing tendency towards “deification,” while (or despite) perhaps sometimes being more theoretical than liturgical, remains personally troubling.

    And the thread of iconoclasm seems to have been less important for Martin Luther and his followers, but it certainly has remained throughout the ensuing centuries.

    Having come from a Roman Catholic perspective, I must admit to developing a particular sort of tolerant (or even dialectical) iconoclasm over the years of my Unificationist journey.

    An evangelical movement, or church, to maintain its thrust or impetus may need such, however, and that brings up the (continuing) dilemma of all religion: Do we matter? Do we make a difference — to our God, the True God, etc. — or even to “history” and this world?

    In the end, perhaps the answer(s) shall always remain quite personal.

    1. EG,

      “Tolerant iconoclasm” is a contradiction of terms, or even a dialectic, and it ends up to be the continuing — self-interrogatory — dilemma. So, the question, what do you want?

      1. Yes, indeed. Thank you, Robert.

        Perhaps to the point [re: “the icons of Unificationism”], Hamlet to Horatio: “There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

        What do I want? World peace? True love and happiness for all?

        Well, I suppose, only my (own) ghost(s) (just as Hamlet discovered) can answer that most satisfactorily.

        Nostalgically, personally speaking, I’d prefer we just keep digging and possibly rediscovering that golden past we all truly long for — where every “ghost” is simply another member of the family.

  5. Dr. Wilson writes: “…. because men like Moses or Muhammad went out into the wilderness to find God, women who stay in the kitchen don’t have the same access to the Divine.”

    A Buddhist teacher once told a story of a monk who spent time meditating under a tree in the mountain. At a point, as the monk was meditating, a bird came chirping on the tree, interrupting his concentration. The monk was irritated and angry at the bird. The bird instantly dropped dead. It had been hit by the monk’s negative mind power, anger, like lightning.

    On another occasion, the same monk went down to a nearby village to collect alms. When he knocked on the door of a certain house, a woman came out. And when she saw who it was, she said to him, “If you would give me a moment, I’ll be back with what I can offer.” She went back in a hurry for she was in the process of administering medication on her sick, old father-in-law. She had for a long time been devotedly taking care of this father-in-law.

    After a few minutes of waiting, the monk began knocking again on the door. He was getting irritated and angry that the woman was keeping him waiting longer than he deserved. The woman came out again and said to him calmly, “Respected one, if you are unable to wait please come another time. And please know one thing; we are human beings here, not birds.”

    The monk was shocked. He had never told anyone about the bird incident. How did the woman know about it? Her devotion at home was as good as his devotion as a monk, if not better.

    Thank you Dr. Wilson for the insights.

  6. Dr. Wilson,

    Your tireless efforts remind me of the math issue of the edges of the circle. Here is a timeless explanation from the DP, p. 19, red part:

    “God’s original internal nature and original external form each contain the mutual relationship of original yang and original yin. Therefore, original yang and original yin are attributes of original internal nature and original external form.”

    Words of True Parents regarding this issue you have quoted already extensively.

    For me, a very interesting problem now, standing in this unique position with True Mother on earth, is my relationship as a male towards her.

    You may remember Rev. Ahn’s lectures from the early 1990s. In them, he emphasizes the unique position of women in relation to True Father in restoration. I wonder if a similar situation does not apply now for us in relation to True Mother? In this context we would need to undergo a course in which our true masculinity is being educated (utilised) by True Mother.

  7. Re: True Parents’ births

    1. Exercise
    Given: “Parents who have original sin can not give birth to good children who do not have original sin.” (Exposition of the Principle, Part I, Chapter 4, 4. 1, 1, 3rd par.)
    Prove: the first substantial true parents must each have been born without the original sin.
    [An 11th grader can solve this]

    2. In the English translation of a speech by True Mother (the lengthy one in which she mostly quotes her mother, but which I cannot find online) she asserts that she was born without original sin and that True Father was also born without original sin “somehow”. [Mrs. Kang evidently reading from a Korean or Japanese text, reported that True Mother asserted that True Father was not born without original sin.]

    1. True Mother is indeed asserting, as True Father did, that both he and Mother have no original sin, and are able to be claimed by God as a true man and a true woman. True Parents are the starting point of begotten children of God — children born through the oneness of God and human beings — as we are all to become, by being reborn (receive the Blessing) through them.

      At the recent event commemorating True Parents’ 57th Holy Blessing Anniversary, True Mother spoke about this once more. Her address starts 49 minutes into this video.

      1. Very insiteful about True Mother’s course and what she is restoring. This is timely, especially with the Sanctuary Church doctrine that True Mother failed.

Use the box below to submit a new comment (To reply, click "Reply" within a specific comment above)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Website Built with

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: