The Beginnings of Cheon Il Guk

Journal of Unification Studies Vol. 13, 2012 - Pages 139-174

Reverend Moon proclaimed Cheonju Pyeonghwa Tongil Guk (the Nation of Cosmic Peace and Unity), abbreviated as Cheon il Guk, on November 15, 2001.[1]Cheon Il Guk was the Unification equivalent of the Kingdom of Heaven and culminated Rev. Moon’s ministry. Previously, he had announced a fundamental shift in the order of salvation from the individual to the family. Cheon Il Guk advanced beyond the family to the creation of a heavenly nation. Although its exact contours were not precisely defined, Cheon Il Guk’s core orientation, character and scope were clear. It would have God at its center. It would have nothing to do with the human fall or sin. And it would encompass all of humanity. As Rev. Moon put it,

Cheon Il Guk… the Nation of Cosmic Peace and Unity… is the one nation that God loves. It is the one nation our families love. It is the one nation our clans love. It is the one nation that white, black and yellow races love.”[2]

The Cheon Il Guk Era referred to the time period during which the foundation of Cheon il Guk was to be established. According to Rev. Moon, the movement was on a “tight schedule” of twelve years, extending until 2013.[3]

During this period, the movement went into full-scale kingdom-building mode. In doing so, it followed three major lines of advance. The first centered on faith leaders and focused on the breaking down of barriers among religions. In particular, Rev. Moon sought a committed core of clergy who understood his messianic role and were willing to support his interreligious initiatives. A second line of advance focused on what was termed the Public Sphere. It centered on secular leaders who were willing to become “Ambassadors of Peace” and support initiatives for world peace, particularly related to renewal of United Nations. From the movement’s perspective, both these lines of advance were for the purpose of preparing the environment for Cheon Il Guk. The third line of advance, known as the Realm of Life, differentiated Cheon Il Guk from anything undertaken before. Essentially, the movement went about the business of birthing a nation. It registered citizens or “owners” of Cheon Il Guk. It conducted coronation ceremonies (first for God, then for True Parents). It promulgated the first articles of the “Constitution of the Kingdom of Heaven.” It built an “Original Palace” (Cheon Jeong Gung) and began a phased construction of a “Third Temple” (Cheon Bok Gung). It declared jubilee years, proclaimed the Pacific Rim Era, and instituted a new Heavenly Calendar. In brief, it began the process of establishing a reality that evoked and embodied its vision of ultimate order.

In pursuing these lines of advance, the movement faced significant obstacles. For one, it faced external opposition. In fact, the movement undertook initiatives that seemed almost intentionally provocative. For example, Rev. Moon defied protocol in conducting a World Peace Blessing at the United Nations. He subsequently took the controversial step of Blessing (i.e., marrying) a Roman Catholic archbishop, thereby precipitat¬ing a crisis at the highest levels of the Vatican. He then had “spirit world messages” of famous personages (including deceased American presidents) testifying to his messianic identity published in major U.S. newspapers. After that, Rev. Moon called on Christian churches to “take down the cross” as a divisive symbol, and movement leaders led a contingent of more than 100 U.S. pastors who buried a large wooden cross in Jerusalem. The movement later conducted a “coronation” of Rev. and Mrs. Moon as “Peace Kings” in the Dirksen Senate Office Building which, when it became public, ignited sharp criticism.[4]

A second obstacle was the world’s situation which seemed to be getting worse rather than better. The Unification movement, no less than the rest of the world, faced the shattering reality of September 11, 2001 (9/11) and the conse¬quent global war on terror. Armed conflicts, weapons of mass destruc¬tion, disease, crime, societal corruption and economic meltdowns continued to abound. It was challenging to square these realities with assurances that humankind was entering the “Peace Kingdom.” In addition, the movement faced internal obstacles, having faced several internal crises during the period. Rev. Moon survived a serious illness in 2003 and, miraculously, a fiery helicopter crash in 2008. Afterwards, a crisis of succession and unseemly struggle over movement assets ensued. As a consequence of these external and internal problems, members dealt with varying levels of cognitive dissonance.

Still, it would be a mistake to conclude that these obstacles over-whelmed Unification faith. In reality, Cheon Il Guk unlocked fresh energies. It unleashed a number of new initiatives, many grandiose even by previous movement standards. It also stimulated creative new ministries, particularly in the areas of interreligious peace-building and youth ministry. Internally, Cheon Il Guk deepened movement spirituality and generated fresh theolo¬gi¬cal categories. Externally, the movement significantly improved its resource management and business performance. How the move¬ment maximized its strengths and opportunities within an environ¬ment of external and internal constraints would be the measure of its continued vitality and viability.

There is a Korean proverb which states, “Beginning is halfway done.” This article is intended to provide a close, interpretive reading of Cheon Il Guk’s beginnings. It focuses on a two-year period extending from the turn of the millennium to the end of 2001 and is part of a larger project that covers the Cheon Il Guk era in its entirety. During this period the movement developed important outreach strategies and methods of promoting its vision. It established theological grounding for initiatives and cultivated its core leadership. Importantly, it was able to overcome or at least neutralize opposi¬tion and to address 9/11, which threatened the premises upon which its program for world peace was based. These were pivotal steps in the proclamation of Cheon Il Guk and in all that was to follow.

 

Background

Strictly speaking, the year 2000 fell outside the Cheon il Guk era which was proclaimed in 2001. Nevertheless, it gave birth to two “providences” that would spearhead future movement initiatives. The first was a ministers’ providence. It focused on the American Clergy Leadership Conference (ACLC), an organization of Christian clergy later broadened to leaders of other faiths, who were willing to support Rev. Moon’s Second Advent ministry. The second was the United Nations providence, a movement effort to renew the UN and enhance its capacity to foster world peace. ACLC and the movement’s efforts to renew the UN were foundational in the proclamation of Cheon Il Guk.

The American Clergy Leadership Conference (ACLC)

Acceptance by Christianity was a key component in the validation of Rev. Moon’s ministry. In the past, clergy supported him on religious freedom grounds and in his opposition to communism. Many accepted invitations for dialogue, and a significant number resonated with the movement’s stand on family values. Some participated in International Marriage Blessings. However, a committed core of clergy who understood Rev. and Mrs. Moon’s messianic role and accepted their identity as the “True Parents of humankind” was lacking. It was precisely this gap that ACLC was intended to fill.

ACLC was born in May 2000 when 120 clergy from seventeen denominations traveled to Seoul, Korea, for the inaugural American Clergy Leadership Conference. Their trips to the demilitarized zone (DMZ) where they released 150 doves of peace and to the movement’s Cheong Pyeong Heaven and Earth Training Center were particularly significant. At Cheong Pyeong, as ministers climbed to various prayer stations on a high hill overlooking the site, they witnessed a rainbow around the sun, which many interpreted as “a sign that Rev. Moon is from God.” Descending, they participated in a healing service and all signed a Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU) flag. Rev. Moon then gave each of them a gold watch with thirty diamonds on its face. He explained that the diamonds represented the beginning of Jesus’ ministry at age thirty. The watches, he said, were “to remind them that now is the time to begin the Kingdom of God on earth and time for them to represent Jesus in their own messianic mission by putting Family Federation flags in 144,000 churches.”[5]

This may have struck a slightly discordant note. The clergy traveled to Korea ostensibly to support South and North Korea re-unification efforts which were in the air under then Republic of Korea President Kim Dae Jung’s Sunshine Policy.[6]  However, the immediate take-away from the conference was that they were being asked to see that FFWPU flags were distributed and hung in 144,000 U.S. church sanctuaries. Fortunately, any potential dissonance was mitigated by several factors. First, the FFWPU symbol was rather innocuous, consisting of a highly stylized father and mother embracing children with a heart in the middle, all underneath a radiant sun. It also was consistent with ACLC’s stated emphasis on family values. Second, the heavy-lifting with respect to flag distribution was carried out by Unification members, particularly sisters from Japan. Third, the movement contextualized and broadened the campaign by declaring a Family Flag Day and distributing flags to government organizations, youth organi-zations, and even homes as well as churches.[7]  Fourth, the returning ministers were still uplifted from their mountaintop experience in Korea. Godwin D’Silva, a FFWPU leader from Los Angeles, reported, “Some [clergy] had personal encounters with the spirit world; some had personal revelations from Jesus; quite a few had illnesses healed from their bodies.”[8]  Rev. Michael Jenkins, previously Vice President for Evangelical Outreach and newly appointed FFWPU-USA President, went further, stating,

These ministers are very different than the past. They are receiving True Parents. The American Leadership Conference started the ball rolling. They are calling them True Father and True Mother. Some-thing has happened where all of a sudden it broke through.[9]

All of these factors trumped what cynical observers might have regarded as a bait-and-switch.

The movement’s collaboration with the Nation of Islam (NOI) Minister Louis Farrakhan’s Million Family March (MFM) in October 2000 presented a potentially more serious source of dissonance. Minister Farrakhan, no less than Rev. Moon, was a polarizing figure in American national life. Based on contacts initiated in Chicago, the FFWPU and NOI had been interacting on an increasingly cordial basis since 1995. That year Minister Farrakhan attended a FFWPU-sponsored True Family Values Ministry’s awards banquet. UM leaders reciprocated by attending NOI Saviour’s Day celebrations. In 1997, Minister Farrakhan attended Blessing ’97 at RFK Stadium where he offered congratulatory remarks and a prayer of blessing on behalf of the Muslim world. In 1998, as part of a World Friendship Tour, Farrakhan visited more than sixty nations including Korea where he met Rev. Moon and toured movement facilities. Later that year, Farrakhan announced his intention to hold the Million Family March (MFM) on October 16, 2000, five years to the day after the 1995 Million Man March. Significantly, he asked his directors “to work together with the leadership of the Family Federation.” Rev. Joong Hyun Pak, former North America Continental Director of FFWPU, noted, “Minister Farrakhan was very inspired by the blessing culture… and also by the production skills and standards of our movement.”[10]  In August 2000, Farrakhan asked Rev. Pak to become an advisor to the MFM. Dr. Chang Shik Yang, then FFWPU Continental Director, was appointed co-chairman of the national organizing committee and Jenkins the event’s co-coordinator.
Though unified at the highest levels, the NOI-FFWPU alliance met resistance down line. On September 21, in a Special Address to the MFM’s National Organizing Committee, Farrakhan found it necessary to quell discord among his following as to FFWPU participation:

I say to the Muslims that are present that I am grateful for the help of the Family Federation for World Peace under Rev. and Mrs. Moon, and I don’t want us to get bent out of shape because folk of another race desire to help. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad told us that people would come from the East, and that they would teach us everything we need to know in order to be the people that God meant for us to be.[11]

Unification leaders played up this comment. Still, some Unificationists were less than pleased with the alliance. Dan Fefferman, a senior leader, stated, “at least one-third of UC members have problems with Farrakhan” and Rev. Moon “knows this.”[12]  Three months prior to the march Rev. Moon invited Minister Farrakhan to his residence, advising him that the march should be non-political, interreligious, and interracial. A month prior to the event, Rev. Moon said that the MFM “has to be a turning point for racial reconciliation in America.”[13]

The event, itself went off smoothly. Thousands of families took part and there were no incidents. Whether it was a turning point for racial reconciliation in America was open to question. According to press accounts, the vast majority of participants were African-American, the whites in the crowd being primarily members of the FFWPU.[14]  Minister Farrakhan was on his best behavior, preaching family, ecumenism and brotherhood, at one point proclaiming, “I am a Christian. I am a Jew. I am a Muslim.”[15]  At the same time, neither he nor other activist speakers back off from the MFM National Agenda, which included proposals on affirmative action, Native American sovereignty, universal healthcare, an end to economic embargoes of Cuba and Iraq, justice for Palestinians, and overhaul of the World Bank among other policy initiatives. Mister Farrakhan offered special recognition and thanks to Rev. and Mrs. Moon in his keynote address and conducted a Unification-inspired Blessing for several dozen international, intercultural and inter-racial couples afterwards. However, he described intermarriage as “an exception to the rule.”[16]  Overall, the coalition held. FFWPU downplayed the MFM National Agenda and NOI downplayed the Marriage Blessing to their respective bases.

The MFM had a positive impact on the ACLC. A major reason for this was that most ministers affiliated with ACLC were African-American. Of the 120 who went to Korea as part of the inaugural ACLC group, 80 percent were black ministers.[17]  Among them, T.L. Barrett, a prominent Chicago Church of God in Christ (COGIC) pastor and one of the 120, played an important intermediary role in connecting FFWPU and NOI. Aside from race, the MFM’s progressive National Agenda, worrisome to conservative Unificationists, was a non-issue for ministers, most of whom were either a-political or sympathetic. In the end, FFWPU involvement in the Million Family March contributed to ACLC membership. Dr. Yang claimed that FFWPU “mobilized about 2,000 members of the American Clergy Leadership Conference for this event” including “a number of mainline denominational leaders.”[18]

The year ended with over 2,500 ministers, political leaders, community leaders and other VIP’s filling the Grand Ballroom of the Chicago Marriott Hotel for the fifth annual True Family Values Banquet on December 16, 2000. Rev. and Mrs. Moon attended as they had before but the atmosphere seemed different, especially among the clergy. A FFWPU leader stated,

[W]e are truly living in a different era now. It was very surprising to see how the Ministers are recognizing our True Parents. God's grace truly covered everything… Many… were impressed by the serious-ness of the ministers as they received Father Moon's words, and noted that Father Moon's style of deliverance had changed. Usually toward ministers, he sticks with the written words and presents a speech. This time, his tone, his style of deliverance, and his content were no different than if he were speaking to only Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU) members.[19]

Another FFWPU representative commented, “Only time will tell what the 120 will do. But, I have a feeling deep in my gut that a New Breed of Disciples—True Disciples—have been born.”[20]  Michael Jenkins reported that Rev. Moon was “so inspired” that he asked FFWPU leaders and the executive committee of the key 120 ministers to organize a 50-state revival tour.[21]  The feeling was that Rev. Moon had found a representative body of clergy willing to align themselves with his Second Advent ministry.

The United Nations Providence

The United Nations had been on the movement’s radar screen for some time. It was UN forces who liberated Rev. Moon from captivity at North Korea’s Hung Nam labor camp during the early stages of the Korean War (1950-53), and he regarded the UN as a providential organization. The movement established a mission at the UN in the early 1970s which undertook religious outreach and support for its “victory over communism” campaign. With the end of the Cold War, Rev. Moon founded a dozen or more Federations for World Peace. Several of these sought and obtained status as NGOs within the UN.[22]  These breakthroughs inspired the move¬ment to establish a World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (WANGO) in 1999. Separately, the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace (IIFWP), the movement’s major umbrella federation, sponsored seven international seminars titled, “True Families as the Foundation for World Peace in the New Millennium” in Washington, D.C., beginning July, 1999. These convened 1500 participants from more than 100 nations and greatly expanded the federation’s circle of contacts.

The IIFWP and WANGO streams came together in August 2000 at the jointly convened Assembly 2000, a major meeting held just prior to the UN’s Millennium Summit and Millennium General Assembly. This impressive event, held jointly at the Waldorf-Astoria and UN Headquarters, was co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions to the UN of Indonesia, Uganda, and Mongolia. Under the theme “Renewing the United Nations and Building a Culture of Peace,” it was attended by dignitaries from over 100 nations, including former heads of state and government, religious and parliamentary leaders, and academic, business, and media leaders, more than 400 in all.[23]  Included among them were Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica and Nobel Peace Laureate; Robert Dole, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader and Republican presidential candidate; the late Sir Edward Heath, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Kenneth Kaunda, former President of Zambia; and Richard Thornburgh, former UN Undersecretary General and Governor of Pennsylvania.

The centerpiece of Assembly 2000 was Rev. Moon’s keynote address, “Renewing the United Nations to Build Lasting Peace.” In this speech, Rev. Moon made three separate proposals. The first called for the establishment of “an interreligious assembly to serve as a senate or council within the United Nations” and that “each nation, in addition to its current ambassador, send a religious ambassador… to serve as a member of the religious assembly or U.N. senate.” The second proposal called for the creation of “peace zones in areas of conflict… governed directly by the United Nations” with a special emphasis on North and South Korea. The third called for an official commemorative day to uphold the ideal of the family, specifically, “that True Parents Day be established as a day of global celebration.” He said IIFWP will make “devoted and sacrificial efforts” on behalf of these proposals and toward the attainment of world peace.[24]

Assembly 2000 launched the movement’s United Nations providence. In October, IIFWP and WANGO convened a second major conference at the New York Hilton and United Nations Headquarters. It brought together more than 500 representatives from a wide range of NGOs on the theme, “The Millennium Declaration of the United Nations: A Response from Civil Society” from October 20-22.[25]  These conferences were so successful from the standpoint of Rev. Moon that he directed IIFWP and WANGO to convene “educational programs in every nation of the world before the end of the year 2000.”[26]  Focusing on themes of character, family, public service and establishing a culture of peace, members in mission nations throughout the world, scrambled to obtain venues and conduct events for local dignitaries. They were surprisingly successful. The International Education Project, as it was termed, served the dual purpose of educating contacts and establishing IIFWP national chapters.
The inauguration of the American chapter of IIFWP took place on December 16, 2000 in Chicago at the conclusion of a two-day conference entitled, “Renewing the Family and Building a Culture of Peace.” The spirit of the occasion was captured by IIFWP’s Director of Religious Affairs, who wrote,

Sessions had a certain blessedness and magic about them. All speakers were somehow at the top of their game; like an athlete “in the zone.” Each spoke substantially and eloquently, moderators were scintillating and effective, readers clear and communicative, and participants in the audience were attentive and engaged. Even under conditions of serious professional engagement of complex and weighty issues speakers received standing ovations, joy and laughter often flowed through us all, abundant conversation filled every fleeting moment, and the community seemed to gel to an uncommon degree around the vision which took shape throughout the course of the seminar.[27]

IIFWP staff might have been forgiven a certain giddiness at the end of several grueling months. However, the inauguration of the American IIFWP chapter had a distinctive symmetry, even synchronicity, in that it was held concurrently with a year-end conference of ACLC ministers. Rev. Moon was said to have been “overjoyed and inspired by the success of the December 15-16th events.”[28]  However, they were about to be succeeded by an event of far greater magnitude.

 

The Coronation Ceremony for the Kingship of God

January 13, 2001 was a landmark day in the Unification tradition. On that day, in main hall of Cheonseong Wanglim (Palace of Heavenly Presence) at Cheong Pyeong Heaven and Earth Training Center in Korea, some six thousand members witnessed Rev. and Mrs. Moon conduct the Coronation Ceremony for the Kingship of God. At the top of a tiered stage area, two white thrones were prepared for the “Royal Parents of Heaven and Earth.” Below that, two golden thrones had been prepared for the True Parents, in front of which was a large offering table with all manner of ornately stacked foods. At 7:00 a.m., Rev. and Mrs. Moon, flanked by 120 attendant couples, entered, preceded by two of their daughters-in-law and who bore silver crowns and royal gowns and the International Family Federation President bearing a scepter. The procession stopped twice, during which time Rev. Moon offered prayers. The crowns, gowns and scepter were placed on the chairs reserved for God, and then Rev. and Mrs. Moon approached the stage area, lit holy candles, offered full bows and took their seats. A lengthy succession of representative members approached and offered bows. Rev. Moon then offered a third prayer. This was followed by the presentation of congratulatory telegrams, plaques, and gifts; a flower presentation; cutting of a celebration cake; cheers of Mansei (“Ten Thousand Years”); and sharing of food from the offering table. Rev. Moon’s Coronation Ceremony Address concluded the three-hour event.[29]

In his ceremony address, Rev. Moon stated, “We can hold this ceremony because all the people on earth and heaven were blessed and form a homogeneous nation.”

This, of course, was a stretch. Even the most generous estimates of those participating in the movement’s International Marriage Blessings fell massively short of that, at least in the earthly world, and a “homogeneous” nation was equally distant. In fact, the coronation ceremony was an example of theological prolepsis, i.e., the present anticipation or representation of a future event. In this instance, the future kingdom was revealing itself ahead of time, as it were, in the coronation ceremony. In accord with this, Rev. Moon outlined what he described as three “immutable laws” or articles of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Heaven: first, not to “stain the blood lineage,” that is, to maintain sexual purity; second, “not to violate human rights” through discrimination and not to change subordinates’ positions (hiring, firing, or transferring them) according to one’s own desire; and third, “not to steal public money” or utilize public property for oneself.

Members sometimes noted that Rev. Moon spoke as though he were addressing realities five hundred or a thousand years in the future. In terms of all the people in the world being blessed, forming a single homogeneous nation, and adopting a heavenly constitution, five hundred or a thousand years would have been viewed by many as too short a horizon. In any event, whether one adopted an imminent or extended eschatological timetable, it did not negate the necessity of hard work in the present. Enormous undertakings lay ahead. However, the motivation for hard work was critical. There was nothing more fundamental to Unification tradition and central to members’ core motivations than the desire to liberate the suffering heart of God. This had its origin in Rev. Moon. In speaking of his 1935 Easter revelation, he stated,

I was on Mt. Myodu praying all night and begging God in tears for answers. Why had he created a world so filled with sorrow and despair? Why was the all-knowing and all-powerful God leaving the world in such pain? What should I do for my tragic homeland? I wept in tears as I asked these questions repeatedly. Early Easter morning, after I had spent the entire night in prayer, Jesus appeared before me. He appeared in an instant, like a gust of wind, and said to me, “God is in great sorrow because of the pain of humankind. You must take on a special mission on earth having to do with Heaven’s work.”[30]

Sixty-five years later, at his 80th birthday celebration in 2000, he emphasized the same point,

I came to realize that God is not sitting in the throne of glory and honor, but is a God of suffering, grief and lamentation, endeavoring to save His children suffering in hell as a result of the fall. Ever since I understood the Will of God and His heart, I have lived my life with a single minded goal to accomplish God's Will, transcending time and space and forgetting everything else… Who will be able to melt the block of ice frozen in the heart of God?[31]

Unificationists often claimed their tradition’s insight into the suffering of God to be unique. This was not the case, particularly among twentieth century theologians for whom divine pathos had become a more compelling image than divine apatheia.[32]  What was distinctive about the Unification position had less to do with God’s suffering and more to do with God’s liberation. Twentieth century Latin American theologians combined the theme of liberation with God but more in terms of the “God of liberation” than the “liberation of God.” Here, perhaps, the movement’s viewpoint was unique. Even more distinctive was its claim that God’s liberation was at hand!
The Coronation Ceremony for the Kingship of God was a culmination of Rev. Moon’s life work. He described it as “the greatest day of celebration in all human history.” As he put it, “We liberated God's heart for the first time. He could start His new history based on the might and power of true love.” The movement fully shared in this. Many members participated directly in the immediate ramp-up to the event. Beginning in July 2000, the movement began 21-day Registration Workshops at its Cheon Pyeong Lake Heaven and Earth Training Center in Korea. These extended through December and into the New Year. The purpose was to prepare members for a national-level Registration Blessing. Wives initially were called to be joined by husbands and children for the final three days. All received holy wine “qualitatively different” from that which they had received at the time of their church blessing. The idea was that members take part in the God’s coronation not only as national-level blessed couples but also for the first time in history, as rightful citizens.

The problem was, as yet no such nation existed. Rev. Moon referred to a “homogeneous nation” in his coronation speech, but while it had a king, three articles of a constitution, and the makings of a citizenry, it had no name and no additional attributes. Clearly, it was a work in progress. Rev. Young Whi Kim, a long-time leader, noted that the registration blessing “should have come after we restored God's nation, but as you know it is not easy to restore one nation to God.”[33]  It was to that task that the movement now turned its attention.

 

“We Will Stand in Oneness”

As mentioned, the success of ACLC sparked the idea of conducting a nationwide revival tour. The tour, appropriately titled “We Will Stand in Oneness,” featured Rev. Moon as keynote speaker and covered 52 American cities (in all 50 states) in 52 days between February 25 and April 17, 2001. The tour, in turn, led to an Interfaith Marriage Blessing of sixty clergy couples presided over by Rev. Moon in the Cotillion Room of the Hilton Hotel in New York City, May 27, 2001. The decision of Roman Catholic Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, 71, to participate in the ceremony led to a highly publicized and explosive international affair involving the movement, Archbishop Milingo and the Roman Catholic Church. Although the Milingo affair was a distraction, the movement subsequently announced plans for a 12,000 Clergy Blessing scheduled to be held at Madison Square Garden on September 22, 2001.     

The Tour

Dr. Yang had responsibility to undertake preliminary research and suggest strategies for the revival tour. He determined that it was “impossible” for Rev. Moon to speak in all 50 states because 85 percent of the members were located in 12 major cities and “over 50 percent of them are concentrated on the eastern seaboard between Boston and Washington, D.C.” He noted, “The reality is that in more than half the states in the country the number of family members in each state can be counted on the fingers of both hands.” However, this suggestion was unacceptable to Rev. Moon, and members from such areas as New York, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, and Miami sent teams of 30 and donations to cities where the church foundation was sparse. Apart from logistics, Dr. Yang was concerned about Rev. Moon’s age and the potential impact of the schedule on his health. He recommended that he give his speech only in the large cities and let his children or church leaders speak in others. This also was unacceptable. Rev. Moon indicated “he was serious enough to risk his life and would take the lead.” He ordered family members in America to work “with the feeling of doing a 40-day fast.”[34] 

The tour itself had several purposes. Its theme was, “Rebuild the Family, Restore the Community, and Renew the Nation.” Rev. Moon and the movement retained belief in America as a Christian nation. As Dr. Yang put it, “When the clergy in America move, Christianity in America will move, and when Christianity is awakened, America will be changed. That’s why Father had this historical, sacrificial speaking tour.”[35]  In informal remarks which preceded each speech and often ran for an hour or more, Rev. Moon emphasized the sanctity of marriage, particularly marital fidelity. He stated that husband and wife were “owners” of one another’s “love organs” and each possessed “only one key.” He typically elicited laughter with his exclamation, “No spare keys!” He also criticized the negative divisions of denominationalism, racism, and nationalism. The tour also provided a platform for more distinctive Unification teachings. Rev. Moon’s 35-minute keynote address, “The Path for America and Humanity in the New Millennium,” highlighted familiar topics: God’s suffering, the Last Days, True Parents, the significance of the Korean peninsula, the Holy Blessing Ceremony, and America’s providential role.[36]

An additional purpose of the tour was to turn around negative media. In this, ACLC clergy were especially helpful. A diverse array of ministers attended press conferences before each event. As a consequence, “a common media question was how clergy from diverse denominations and different races can support Rev. Moon so wholeheartedly.” Dr. Yang reported that newspaper headlines were of the “Local Ministers Welcome Rev. Moon” variety.[37]

A final purpose of the tour was to expand and solidify ACLC. Over 300 clergy provided positive support. Many invited clergy friends and contacted others. In Mississippi, where there were only two members, both of whom worked in a Japanese restaurant, a supporting minister took the lead in contacting several hundred church leaders. Dr. Yang noted, “It would have been impossible to have the event in many cities without the help of those ministers.” He stated that because of the tour, “ACLC developed into an organization with a national network” and it provided “a major impetus to rapidly expand the membership from the 120 founding members to 12,000 and now well on the way to 144,000.”[38]  A movement source claimed that the tour reached over 100,000 people, including 14,000 clergy.[39]  

From inception, movement leaders sought to have the ministers take ownership of the tour. The ACLC executive committee provided the “We Will Stand in Oneness” theme derived from Ephesians 6:10-11. Some 21 national evangelists from among the 120 joined the tour and gave witness to Rev. Moon prior to his address.

Archbishop George Augustus Stallings, founder of the Amani Temple African American Catholic Congregation in Washington, D.C., declared that Rev. Moon possessed a “Triple-A Rating” being “Annointed, Appointed, and Approved.” For his part, Rev. Moon made known his preference “to speak in churches whenever possible, rather than hotels.” Significantly, tour emcees consistently referred to Rev. and Mrs. Moon as the True Parents of Humankind. ACLC Co-Convener Michael Jenkins explained that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were the spiritual True Parents through whom Christians are reborn and that Rev. and Mrs. Moon were anointed by Jesus as earthly True Parents with the particular mission of sanctifying families. However, some clergy did not require theological explanations. Rev. Jesse Edwards, a Pentecostal evangelist, initially struggled with the “True Parents” terminology but testified, “one day in prayer, {I} heard a voice from Heaven that said, ‘My son. True Parents is the word I have been waiting 35 years to hear.’” He subsequently became “a forceful and courageous witness to True Parents.”[40]

Dr. Yang noted that wherever Rev. Moon went, “clergy rolled out the red carpet for him.” He went so far as to claim, “The established Christian leaders… welcomed True Parents as if welcoming Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem, shouting Hosanna! Hosanna! and waving palm branches.”[41]  Though undoubtedly Unification hyperbole, it conveyed something of the spirit of the tour. If for no other reason, ministers were impressed by Rev. Moon’s dedication, at his advanced age, covering 52 cities in 52 days. Rev. Moon joked that he had undergone an age reversal, being 18 instead of 81. In morning devotionals and breakfasts during the tour Rev. Moon had the opportunity for more extensive interaction with traveling clergy. It was in the context of this interaction that the tour generated an unexpected outcome. Clergy began to seek Rev. and Mrs. Moon’s blessing on their marriages.

The Interfaith Marriage Blessing

If a single incident drove the nuptials that were to occur on May 27, 2001 at the New York Hilton, it was the marital reconciliation of T.L. Barrett, pastor of the Life Center Church of God in Christ in Chicago, and his wife Cleopatra. Pastor Barrett had been divorced for ten years and confided to Rev. Moon his “desire to be reunited with his wife of 24 years.” According to one report, “after deep reflection and prayer,” Rev. Moon “predicted a rapid reconciliation which even Pastor Barrett had a hard time to believe, until it happened 10 days later!”[42]  As the Barrett’s “marriage miracle” spread through the tour, Archbishop George Stallings of the Amani Temple African American Catholic Congregation, which allowed clergy marriage but who himself was unmarried, asked to be joined with Sayomi Kamimoto, a member whom he had met prior to the tour. Rev. Moon concurred and this opened the floodgates. According to one report,

As plans proceeded for Archbishop Stallings’ wedding, the word spread and others emerged who sought the guidance and support of Father and Mother Moon to bless their marriage. Plans were changed to include 3 couples, then 12… no… let’s have 21! How about 36? Ok, 40! But the number of couples seeking to participate in this truly international, interracial, and interreligious ceremony continued to mushroom as the wedding day approached.[43]

In the end, the blessing included some sixty religious leaders: “ministers, imams, and clerics; Pentecostals and Baptists, Lutherans and Muslims, Native Americans, Sufis, and more.”[44]

The Interfaith Marriage Blessing may have received only passing notice had it not included a providential participant, Roman Catholic Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. Milingo was considered to be a maverick by many. In 1969, Pope Paul VI consecrated him Bishop of the Archdiocese of Lukasa, capital of Zambia, making him one of Africa’s youngest bishops. He served in that capacity from 1969-1983 when he ran afoul of the Vatican over his faith healing and exorcisms, his activities prompting complaints that he was acting as a witch doctor. Called to Rome, he then served in the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples and developed a charismatic ministry, continued public healing and exorcism, and even recorded two music albums. However, he chafed under church-imposed restrictions and became increasingly outspoken. At Fatima 2000, he charged that there were high-ranking Catholic clerics involved in devil worship, fornication and adultery, and accused the church of tolerating “secret affairs and marriages, broken celibacy, illegitimate children, rampant homosexuality and illicit sex.”[45]

Milingo’s initial contact with the UM was not well documented. His position with the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples may have facilitated contact with Unification missionaries. His frustration with the church over restrictions placed upon his ministry and his criticism of ecclesiastical sexual transgressions undoubtedly rendered him open to the movement’s position on marriage and family. A member’s testimony suggested that he was spiritually led to the movement.[46]  Milingo’s relationship to the movement developed through inter-religious dialogues and conferences. He attended the International Marriage Blessings at Seoul Olympic Stadium in 1999 and 2000, appearing publicly and offering representative prayers for the couples on behalf of Catholicism.

Archbishop Milingo and Rev. Moon discussed marriage on those occasions, Rev. Moon reportedly telling him, “Even the Pope should get married.”[47]  Nevertheless, Milingo’s participation in the Interfaith Marriage Blessing was unexpected. According to Phillip Schanker, FFWPU’s Director of Public Affairs,

As the plans for the ceremony developed, there were some who inevitably thought of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, who had participated in offering prayers and blessings at previous ceremonies, but who as a Roman Catholic had stayed well clear of any idea that he himself would marry. Some who knew him reached out to Rome, but His Grace was nowhere to be found. Suddenly, we found that he was already in New York! And his disposition toward the Blessing was dramatically different. We felt the hand of God moving deeply and silently in this situation.[48]

On May 27 Milingo was blessed with Maria Sung, 43, a Korean member whom he described as “a Doctor of Acupuncture and a loving and faithful servant of the Lord.”[49]

In a formal statement released the previous day, Milingo admitted he was taking “a step that will change my life forever” but said he was doing so “only in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, and only after many days of prayer and fasting.” He offered both theological and vocational reasons for his decision. Theologically, he maintained, “the oneness of a Godly man and woman is a true reflection of the Holy Trinity.” While acknowledging, “the priestly vow of celibacy has a profound meaning in the providence of God,” he suggested, “the sacrifice of celibate life has fulfilled its purpose” and “We enter the era when every man and woman is called to fulfill his or her original purpose to reflect God’s image.”

Vocationally, Milingo admitted to frustration with those in the church hierarchy who sought to restrict his ministry. “It became clear,” he said, “that I would not be allowed to return to the Archdiocese of Lusaka, to serve the African people whom I love.” He expressed hope that his “embrace of God's ideal of marriage and family” and “determination to follow… my commitment to the salvation of Africa… will touch the hearts of the faithful, and serve as a wake-up call to the church as it enters a new millennium.” He denied that he was “converted or controlled.” He said that he “asked Father and Mother Moon to arrange and consecrate my marriage because of my respect for the special anointing that God has given them for the building of God-centered marriages and families.”[50]

It was a remarkable situation. Milingo insisted he had not changed his faith and would continue to celebrate the mass every day. At the same time, he affirmed Rev. and Mrs. Moon’s “special ministry to build loving, God-centered families amongst people of all faiths, in the capacity of True Parents.”[51]  The archbishop may have been able to hold together this admixture of Roman Catholicism and Unificationism within his religious consciousness. It also seemed to work well enough for the movement. However, it was combustible in the public arena and toxic to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. A drama (some termed it a melodrama), replete with charge and counter-charge, intrigue, and betrayal, real or perceived, all trumpeted in the Italian and international press was about to unfold.

The Milingo Affair

If Archbishop Milingo thought his statement, issued on the eve of the May 27 Interfaith Marriage Blessing, was sufficient to diffuse the situation, he was seriously mistaken. If anything, his statement and press conference inflamed it. More than forty media outlets covered the ceremony. As Schanker described,

The Italian press went wild, as did many in Europe, where Archbishop Milingo has a large and faithful following. The American press was similarly vocal: “Maverick Archbishop Weds in Manhattan,” “Wedding Highlights Celibacy Issue,” noted the headlines. With a cover photo of the “kissing cleric,” the New York Post compared the Archbishop’s action to others who faced censure for challenging the church to change, such as Martin Luther and Galileo Galilei. Front page articles ran in Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, and across Latin America. African papers followed the story closely. Even the Korean media was buzzing.[52]

Schanker wrote, “Heaven truly fired ‘a shot heard round the world’” and echoed Rev. Moon’s sentiment that “a Pentecost would sweep the nation.” No one, he stated, “envisioned such a cosmic and heavenly wedding… nor the explosion it would create… Now we must preach the kingdom of God to the ends of the earth!”[53]

There was a temporary lull following the ceremony. Milingo and Sung were observing the traditional forty-day separation period followed by Unification couples prior to consummating their marriage. During this period they traveled widely, visiting and speaking at movement services as well as in the churches of ACLC pastors. They attended a graduation ceremony at Unification Theological Seminary, and Milingo announced his intention of working with 120,000 married priests who had “lost their status as spiritual leaders.”[54]  In early July, he flew to Korea where he and four prominent ACLC ministers spoke in support of Rev. Moon at rallies for the “Settlement of God’s Fatherland.” He and his wife toured various Unification sites including Cheong Pyeong Lake retreat center. They also enjoyed a brief honeymoon on Cheju Island, a Korean resort destination south of the mainland. However, things were soon to change.

On July 17, 2001, the Vatican issued an ultimatum demanding that Milingo separate from Sung, sever all links with the “sect,” “declare publicly his fidelity to the doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline of celibacy,” and “manifest his obedience to the Supreme Pontiff by a clear and unequivocal act.” The “canonical admonition,” issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), concluded, “Should Archbishop Milingo not formally act by 20 August, 2001 to fulfill what is hereby required of him, excommunication reserved to the Holy See will be imposed.”[55]  At this point, Milingo was unrepentant. In a “Response to the Public Admonition,” he repeated many of the same points made in his earlier statement and charged that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had “arrogantly refuse[d] to consider any of the issues that I have raised.” He stated defiantly, “I have no remorse for what I have done, and have no intention of retreating from it.” At the same time, Milingo hoped for reconciliation. He revealed that he had written the Holy Father three times, “asking to meet with him and find a place in the church I love.”[56]

The plot thickened in early August when Alba Vitali, an Italian artist who had done a portrait of Milingo eleven years before, notified him that she had arranged an impromptu meeting with the Pope. The archbishop and his wife flew to Milan on August 6. From there, Milingo and Vitali continued to Castel Gandolfo (a summer residence of the Pope) while Maria Sung remained in Milan. The following day, Milingo met separately with church prelates including Cardinal Ratzinger, and on August 8 had a private audience with Pope John Paul II who reportedly admonished him, “In the name of Jesus, come back to the church.”[57]  At a news conference the same day, Vatican officials suspended the August 20th deadline for his return, and Milingo dropped from public view, beginning a period of seclusion. Three days later, on August 11, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued a statement saying that the archbishop decided to “take a period of reflection and prayer” toward his “total reconciliation.” On Aug. 14, the Vatican released a hand written letter from Milingo to the Pope in which he renounced his marriage, cut his ties with the Unification Church and pledged to return to the Roman Catholic fold.[58]

This may have concluded matters had not Maria Sung taken decisive action. She held a tearful press conference in which she constructed a conflicting narrative. She said Archbishop Milingo had communicated to her only once, just before his disappearance, telling her to go to a “safe place,” that he was “facing a difficult fight,” and that “he was not free to talk but would call back soon.” However, he did not call back. She further noted in a news conference after meeting with the Pope, that the archbishop had said that he would not decide his future without her, that the church should respect her “human rights,” and that he wanted to talk with her. She demanded to meet him face-to-face with no intermediaries. She then dropped a bombshell, threatening to go on a hunger strike unless the Vatican allowed her to communicate with her husband. Two days later she rejected a Vatican delegation that came to her hotel with a purported message from the Archbishop, and on August 14 she began a fast of indefinite length, taking no food and only drinking mineral water. The next day she began daily prayer vigils St. Peter’s Square surrounded by a “posse of media.”[59]

Things continued to escalate. Three days into the fast, Sung created a stir by taking a pregnancy test to determine whether she was carrying the archbishop’s child (she wasn’t). On the seventh day, Revs. Hycel Taylor and T.L. Barrett, ACLC-affiliated African-American pastors arrived, seeking an audience with the Pope in hopes of convincing him to allow a meeting between the archbishop and his hunger-striking wife. By the eighth day, Sung had become a magnet for church critics who opposed its rules on celibacy and suspected it of racist bias. On the ninth day, members of the FFWPU, ministers and children gathered in front of St. Peter's Basilica for a candlelight prayer vigil in her support. On the tenth day Milingo, described in various accounts as “disheveled,” “unshaven,” and “stressed, even fuzzy,” appeared for the first time in more than two weeks in a televised video, announcing that he had “finalized his decision to leave his wife” whom he now loved “as a sister.” This did very little to alter growing sentiment in support of Maria Sung. On the twelfth day, Italy’s three largest newspapers published the text of her open letter to the Pope. On the thirteenth, Sung missed her first daily trip to St. Peter’s Square due to illness and fever. Twelve women who had joined her in the fast carried an empty chair to the square. Doctors said she had lost 18 kg. After fifteenth days, the New York Times reported,

There is no question that Ms. Sung has put the Vatican on the defensive… Each day seems to bring fresh humiliations for the church—and new questions about why the archbishop just does not meet with Ms. Sung and end the drama.[60]

For its part, the movement had to fend off accusations that it was using the situation to criticize the doctrine of celibacy and had “animosity” toward the Catholic Church.[61]

Negotiations for a meeting between FFWPU representatives and the Vatican proceeded in fits and starts, both directly and indirectly through the media. Both sides “accused the other of setting unreasonable conditions.” Finally on August 29, the sixteenth day of Maria Sung’s fast, the couple met face-to-face for two-and-a-half-hours in a room at the Arcangelo Hotel in Rome under the observation of representatives from both churches. Milingo confirmed his intention of ending the marriage and asked Maria to “respect his wishes.” He gave her a rosary and short note addressed to “My beloved sister Maria Sung” which read in part,

America has deposited me on the shores of Italy, and Italy has borne me to shores of my church in Vatican City, and to the heart of my family, which welcomed me and brought me not to death but to a reinforced life.[62]

The implication was that in exchange for leaving Maria, Milingo had obtained more openness toward his Afro-centric healing ministry. He did acknowledge being “guilty of” (elsewhere translated as “aware of”) her suffering and that he was “with you in all your suffering, praying for you every day.” Maria Sung accepted the archbishop’s decision, stated she would “live alone” for the rest of her life, support him in his mission and expressed hope they would be reunited in the afterlife. Schanker, who was present, said, “There was a deep exchange of feelings” and everyone at the meeting “had been moved.”[63]  However, in a letter to U.S. members, Rev. Jenkins wrote,

As you know they finally met tonight and they are not getting back together at this time. Again, do not take this at face value. Father [Rev. Moon] stated that God's will is being accomplished in a very mysterious way.[64]

Jenkins later stated, “The circumstances around this historical couple are profound and the story is not over yet. Many details cannot be revealed.”[65]

Milingo departed from Rome for a thirteen-month penitential retreat in Argentina and receded from public view over the next four years. He then resurfaced dramatically on July 12, 2006 at a press conference in Washing¬ton, D.C. Having gone missing the previous month from a convent at Zagarola outside of Rome, he announced that he was reuniting with his wife and embarking on an “independent charismatic ministry” to reconcile married priests with the Catholic faith. In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Milingo said he had lived through five years of “doubts and difficulties,” wondering if he had made the right choice. As he put it, “The shadow of Maria Sung always hung over me.” In addition, resistance to his preaching and healing ministry continued and gradually became “more and more intolerable.”[66]  His actions precipitated a new round of controversy with the Vatican and quickly escalated into an open rupture.[67]  However, that lay in the future. Now it was time for the movement to focus its attention on a previous commitment.

12,000 Couple Clergy Blessing

Prior to the outbreak of controversy surrounding Archbishop Milingo and Maria Sung, Rev. Moon committed the movement to a high risk under. Based on the Interfaith Marriage Blessing of 60 clergy couples on May 27, 2001,” he upped the stakes, calling for a 12,000 Couple Clergy Blessing at Madison Square Garden in September. Dr. Yang referred to the 60 couple blessing as a “formation stage” event and asserted the 12,000 blessed clergy couples would be the real harvest of the 50-city tour. He also said that this would be a “world clergy blessing.” Rev. Moon directed there should be from twelve to twenty representative couples from each nation. Korea was expected to bring high-level Buddhist monks. Dr. Yang set a target of 50-100 ministers from each of the 50 states in America.[68]

These were exceedingly lofty expectations. The movement claimed ACLC membership had grown to 12,000. However, the level of commitment was uneven. Whether the requisite number from around the country would attend, much less work for, the 12,000 Couple Clergy Blessing was an open question. In addition, the turnaround from the Interfaith Marriage Blessing of 60 clergy on May 27 to the Madison Square Garden event scheduled for September 22 was tight. Besides that, the Milingo affair was a distraction through much of the summer, especially August. It also resurfaced theological concerns. On August 15, FFWPU issued a “Statement Concerning Incorrect Presentation of Unification Teaching on Jesus Christ” in which it complained about Associated Press coverage.[69]  Rev. Jenkins reported, “The media keeps putting out one negative message that Father says he’s the messiah and Jesus failed. That kills Christians.”[70]

Difficulties were strikingly evident at an August 28 leaders meeting. After summarizing the event’s goals, Dr. Yang said, “To accomplish this, we need a strategy. We need clear direction. Based on this, we need practical work.” This was a breathtaking admission twenty-five days out from the event. Rev. Jenkins added, “We are in a very serious spiritual battle… Satan is doing everything to stop us.” However, he pointed out that the movement had two strategies. The first was “to work through the Christian churches and with the top religious leaders, including Minister Farrakhan” and with ethnic groups. The movement “made a list of the top churches that are positive in each [New York] district,” the Bronx being the most promising, and members were asked to follow a “One family, one church” model. The second strategy was to have rallies and meetings. Jenkins’ report did not include results on the ground aside from noting, “Choir confirmation is very weak. We have only 350 confirmed right now.” The plan had been to assemble a 3,000 voice ecumenical choir. He concluded by stating, “There are 500 Haitian churches and maybe a 3,000 voice choir may come,” hardly a ringing affirmation.[71]

However, Jenkins offered a much more optimistic report on September 8th based on a revised strategy and accelerated mobilization. The event was now titled the “We Will Stand in Oneness Revival, Blessing and Holy Convocation.” This signified a broadened focus with the Blessing being one of several foci. In addition, movement’s IIFWP leadership stepped in and the Blessing now would include academic, social and government leaders as well as clergy. Jenkins reported, “Hundreds of Japanese missionaries” had arrived to “work for MSG.” He noted that Korean regional leaders and “many, many members” had moved to New York and New Jersey to help. He confidently reported,

Literally hundreds of Christian ministers and churches are organizing side by side with our blessed families to bring thousands of couples… a great outreach is going on throughout New York, New Jersey, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C. and across the east coast… Atlanta and Florida regions are making breakthroughs with clergy. Los Angeles and San Francisco are bringing over 200 clergy and Christian leaders and couples. Chicago is working on 2000 Christian leaders with 400 Clergy couples. Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle, St. Louis, Dallas, Columbus and many other major cities and regions are in full swing. I know that clergy couples from as far away as Alaska and Hawaii are coming.[72]

In short, the movement was pulling out all the stops.

Three days later, the event was overtaken by a disaster that would alter the physical and psychological landscape of Manhattan and the world for years to come. According to Jenkins, many ministers were “predicting that when 12,000 gather at the Garden an international Pentecost will occur.”[73]  Given the attacks of 9/11, the apocalypse would have been a more appropriate biblical image.

 

The Proclamation of Cheon Il Guk

The events of 9/11 not only forced cancellation of the movement’s September 22nd blessing but also challenged the interreligious premises upon which upon which it was based. In the days after the World Trade Center’s collapse, movement leaders and ACLC clergy who were gathered in New York ministered directly to bereaved families as well as to police, firefighters and others at the site. The movement also participated in relief efforts and organized a well-attended Day of Prayer and Healing prayer service at the Adam Clayton Powell State Office Building in Harlem on September 22nd, the day originally scheduled for the Blessing.

However, the tragedy also demanded a theological response. To all out¬ward appearances, 9/11 was a massive disconfirmation of the movement’s program for world peace. At moments such as this, members looked to Rev. Moon for guidance and inspiration, and it was out of the caldron of tragedy and confusion that he proclaimed Cheol Il Guk. Without minimizing the suffering of 9/11, which he compared to America being on the Cross, Rev. Moon essentially made the case that under these conditions interreligious harmony, world peace initiatives and, indeed, a “nation of cosmic peace and unity” were all the more needed. His proclamation enabled the movement regain its bearings and focus on a program for the coming decade.

Response to 9/11

When the airliners struck the World Trade Towers, movement and ACLC leaders were at 4 West 43rd Street, Manhattan in a planning meeting for the September 22 Blessing. Initially, they were torn between “profound shock and sorrow in the wake of the devastating destruction” and an obligation to soldier on to the blessing event. On September 12, ACLC prepared a draft letter which attempted to hold these two emphases together. It issued “a call for religious leaders of all denominations and faith traditions to together for prayer and healing” at the September 22 event, re-titled the “We Will Stand in Oneness Revival, Healing and Blessing Holy Convocation 2001.” The event would now include “a March for Peace and special addresses and prayers of healing and reconciliation… delivered by some of America's great Christian leaders” in addition to the Clergy Blessing.[74]  However, it soon became apparent that the effort to incorporate a response to 9/11 within the context of the Blessing was neither workable nor proper. The enormity of the tragedy was simply too great to combine with any other purpose. On September 15, with input from Rev. Moon, the movement cancelled the Blessing.

This decision freed the movement and ACLC clergy to focus their attention on ministering to those in trauma. Given their clergy credentials, Unification and ACLC pastors were granted access to Ground Zero and many went, starting from the first night. Rev. Jenkins commented, “Firemen, doctors, rescue volunteers and especially police wanted to talk about God. Repeatedly officers would say… ‘Pastor, please pray for us. Please don't forget those who died.’”[75]  Dr. Yang told members,

I have gone to Ground Zero several times… I cannot describe to you how painful it was to stand there and smell the burned bodies and to pray there through the night. I also prayed at the temporary morgue where the recovered bodies, and the body-parts recovered from the site were taken.[76]

The International Relief and Friendship Foundation (IRFF), a movement-funded relief organization, sprung into action on the second day. It connected with partner agencies and assumed “responsibility for finding volunteers to prepare food for the thousands of rescue workers.” On September 15, IRFF began providing Needs Assessments of Unmet Needs and obtained space at the church’s national headquarters, 4 West 43rd Street for a Needs Assessment Facility.[77]  Based on these and other activities, a movement-sponsored interfaith prayer breakfast in midtown Manhattan and a Day of Prayer and Healing gathering at the Adam Clayton Powell State Office Building in Harlem, both held on September 22, the day on which the Blessing had been scheduled, possessed more credibility. Over a thousand clergy gathered for the prayer breakfast and some three thousand, clergy and others, participated in the Harlem event. The previous night forty ministers went to Ground Zero.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the movement looked to Rev. Moon for guidance as to its meaning. He had been in Kodiak, Alaska, at the time of the attack and learned of it through a note that was passed to him during morning devotions. Rev. Yang reported that Rev. Moon “remained by himself and prayed” for the next three days, not appearing in public. He then made the decision to cancel the clergy Blessing and flew to New York on September 18th. On arrival he met with leaders and offered what would be the movement’s theological qua providential interpretation of the tragedy. As he expressed it, “Jesus was on the cross, now America stands on the cross of the world.” The question was, how would America respond? According to Rev. Moon, “Now is the time to change everything. America and Americans must take the lead in practicing ‘Love your enemy.’” This meant not retaliating in kind, and he cautioned against war. To his mind, religious leaders must take the lead. They “must unite beyond their religion and guide the political leaders of their nations.” That, he said, was the reason he established IIFWP. In his view, “America must connect properly with this organization for there to be peace.” He insisted, “Our members must convey this idea to all people.”[78]

Clearly, Rev. Moon was not backing off one iota from his peace program. Movement leaders immediately understood this. Rev. Jenkins reassured members, “God’s providence in America is on track. It did not fail.”[79]  In a subsequent communication, he stated,

We are on the cross. However, I believe that our love is so great that we will not only redeem the thief on the right but also the one on the left. We can unite both Christianity and Islam and in the process redeem America and the world.[80]

Many would have regarded these sentiments as ridiculously, even dangerously naïve in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the years to follow. Nevertheless, as coalition forces mounted their first military strikes on Afghanistan, the movement accelerated its efforts to assemble a body of like-minded peace activists.

Ambassadors for Peace

Apart from clergy, the movement sought to inspire a broad range of secular leaders with its vision and initiatives for world peace. As previously noted, the movement’s UN providence ran concurrently with its ministers’ work. As a follow-up to Assembly 2000, the movement had convened a Convocation of World Leaders under the theme “Dialogue and Harmony among Civilizations: The Family, Universal Values, and World Peace” in New York City from January 26-30, 2001 Jointly sponsored by IIFWP, FFWPU and WANGO, as well as four permanent missions to the UN (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan), the League of Arab States and organization of the Islamic Conferences, it brought together more than 800 participants from 143 nations, including 40 current and former heads of state, heads of government, and prime ministers.[81]  They included former Vice-President Dan Quayle, former Polish President Lech Walesa, former U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig, and former British P.M. Edward Heath. The meeting included a World Peace Blessing at the UN and began the movement’s Ambassador for Peace program.

The World Peace Blessing brought together 210 young couples from diverse national backgrounds in the UN assembly room. They, along with Rev. and Mrs. Moon, dressed in colorful national and ethnic costumes. IIFWP personnel attempted to characterize the event as a simple “blessing” of religious and secular leaders on young couples, not a wedding. They noted that the movement-affiliated Women’s Federation for World Peace (WFWP) previously conducted a Bridge Ceremony at the UN with women of formerly enemy nations embracing after crossing a makeshift “bridge of peace,” and that this provoked no controversy. However UN sensitivity about religious ceremonial and the movement’s reputation for mass weddings insured that would not be the case this time. UN officials viewed the blessing as a serious breach of the rules for UN facilities.[82]  As a consequence, the Secretariat refused a request for conference space by Indonesia and other co-sponsors for a movement event in May. The UN also denied NGO accreditation status to the movement-affiliated Youth Federation for World Peace (YFWP) later in the year.

The movement fared much better with its Ambassador for Peace initiative. At Assembly 2000, Rev. Moon’s proposal for the establishment of an interreligious assembly at the UN included the appointment of “religious ambassadors.” Rather than wait for the UN, the movement itself began appointing Ambassadors for Peace at the time of the World Peace Blessing. Afterwards, it convened two International Leadership Seminars in Washington, D.C. at which additional Ambassadors for Peace were commissioned. During the first six months of 2001, IIFWP convened seminars and appointed Ambassadors for Peace in the Czech Republic, Russia, Uruguay, Australia, Thailand, Kenya and Turkey. In late May it appointed 260 additional leaders at an international symposium in New York. In July Rev. and Mrs. Moon conducted a speaking tour of twelve Korean cities, during which they reportedly appointed 2,000 Ambassadors for Peace. In October Rev. Moon directed the American movement to carry out International Leadership Conferences in every state with a goal of appointing 2,000 new Ambassadors for Peace by the end of the year.[83]

Newly minted Ambassadors for Peace received a framed certificate of appointment signed by Rev. and Mrs. Moon. Their briefs varied over time but, in general, they were expected to affirm five “peace principles”:

  1. God is the Parent of all humankind;
  2. Human beings are essentially spiritual in nature;
  3. The highest standard for human relationships is the ethic of “living for the sake of others”;
  4. The family is the fundamental institution of society, and functions as a school of love. Committed and faithful marriage, as the foundation of stable, loving families, should be honored as a sacred union; and
  5. Interreligious and international cooperation are essential for world peace;[84]

 

It would be difficult for most public figures to oppose these principles. However, the appointment of peace ambassadors had a deeper, mostly unspoken significance for the movement. According to Unification News, the newspaper of the Unification community in America,

In the highest sense, Ambassadors for Peace are the direct representative, not of a people, religion or nation, but of God and True Parents. In this sense, the Ambassadors represent God’s ideal kingdom… Although True Parents do not have a sovereign nation which would naturally have ambassadors, these Ambassadors repre-sent God’s ideal nation. From heaven’s point of view, current nations, and even the United Nations, do not represent God’s original ideal. Thus, the world’s ambassadors are not truly representative of God’s ideal. The Ambassadors of Peace are to be representatives of God’s ideal.[85]

From this perspective, the appointment of Ambassadors for Peace was a building block in the proclamation of Cheon Il Guk. However, 9/11 and the resulting global war on terror were grave threats. In order for Rev. Moon to proclaim, much less launch a heavenly nation, these threats needed to be confronted.

Proclaiming Cheon Il Guk

The movement addressed 9/11 at Assembly 2001, titled “Global Violence: Crisis and Hope.” Convened in New York from October 19-22, 2001, it was designed as “a rapid response to the chain of events set off by the tragic acts of violence on September 11.” Dr. Thomas Walsh, IIFWP Secretary General, congratulated participants for their courage in coming to New York. As he put it in his Preface to the conference proceedings,

At a time when many were hesitant to travel anywhere, much less to New York City near the rising smoke at Ground Zero, the IIFWP called together more than 400 leaders, from more than 100 nations, to address root causes and potential solutions to global violence.[86]

As with other major IIFWP meetings, the conference included a number of luminaries. Speakers this time included, among others, Dan Quayle (again); H.E. Abdurrahman, former president of Indonesia; Jerry Falwell, founder and chancellor of Liberty University; Edward Schreyer, former Governor-General of Canada; Jose de Venecia, Speaker of the House of Represen¬tatives of the Philippines; and Minister Louis Farrakhan. Impor¬tantly, the assembly brought into dialogue diverse representatives of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Dr. Walsh described the encounter as “charged and challenging, but ultimately both constructive and enlightening.”[87]

He likely downplayed the tension. In fact, following the conference, IIFWP found it necessary to publish a “Response of the IIFWP to Controversy at the Assembly 2001 Conference.” It stated,

The IIFWP does not shy away from controversy, nor tilt its program in one direction or another. In this Assembly (as in all IIFWP conferences) speakers represented about as broad a range on both the political and the religious spectrum as possible.

It should be noted formally and for the record, that positions and statements presented by speakers at this conference, as with all IIFWP conferences, may directly contradict positions of the organ-izers and even the founder. This fact, however, does not bear on IIFWP’s policy of respect, nor its commitment to pursue what might be labeled "hard dialogue," namely dialogue and encounter among people who differ fundamentally and passionately…

Assembly 2001 was a conference for peace in a time of war. A time when passions run high and opinions are strong… [It] hosted a number of speakers many of whom would be considered controversial or unacceptable by one side or another. While individuals in the IIFWP may themselves lean to one position or another, the IIFWP is not in the business of pitching one side over another. It is in the business of dialogue for the sake of peace.[88]

There were sharp differences among participants as to the root causes and potential solutions to global violence. One speaker, without referring to the Unification movement, suggested that grandiose promises of an uncorrupted world of brotherly love were “harbingers of totalitarianism.” In another of the assembly’s most highly charged sessions, an Islamic scholar departed from his prepared remarks to announce his excommunication for a book of his in print. This, he said, was tantamount to a death warrant. He then pointed out that representatives from the organization that excom¬mun¬icated him were present in the audience! This precipitated an outburst and intervention from the session chair.

However, the most controversial assembly speech was a luncheon address by Minister Louis Farrakhan. He offended sensibilities by referring to “the blinding arrogance of power gripping the leadership of our nation,” asserting that “Presidents have lied to the American people… in the past,” and questioning the “overwhelming evidence” against Osama bin Laden. He said religious people should “not be the mouthpieces of a government gone astray,” refused “to be a part of the crusades being fought again” and claimed, “The U.S. wants a wider war.” He concluded by saying, “I pray that all of us who are ambassadors of peace will also be ambassadors who speak the truth.”[89]

Probably the most significant outcome of Minister Farrakhan’s speech was that it sparked a rejoinder from Rev. Moon. In a luncheon meeting with twenty-one religious leaders on the following day, Rev. Moon delivered a lengthy discourse on enemies, persecution, love and forgiveness. He then spoke directly to Minister Farrakhan, saying, “You’re a good man, a man of God, a powerful speaker. But you must stop being so angry, you’re too angry, it’s no good!"[90]  An observer at the luncheon later reported,

I ran into a colleague who had been at an event in Harlem, New York where Minister Farrakhan gave a speech. She was not aware of the lunchtime meeting that I had attended and told me that she was surprised when Minster Farrakhan said something to the effect, “I know that I have been too angry, I have to work on this.” When I heard her report, I knew that the words Rev. Moon spoke to Minister Farrakhan that afternoon had resonated. I was then convinced that something very special took place at the luncheon that day.[91]

In reality, the luncheon, the conference, and the tragic acts of violence on September 11 had crystallized something in Rev. Moon.

All the elements that factored into his proclamation of Cheon Il Guk less than a month after Assembly 2001 were not entirely clear. It couldn’t be argued that 9/11 was a building block. If anything, it was a negative building block. Not only was it a massive disconfirmation of the movement’s program for world peace, but its chaos and negativity had infiltrated IIFWP’s otherwise well-scripted assembly. Minister Farrakhan, with whom the movement worked so harmoniously on the Million Family March and who in the minds of many members was an Exhibit A reclamation project, now showed himself at his divisive best. Students of cognitive dissonance might have referred to the phenomenon of “increased fervor following disconfirmation of a belief” in explaining Rev. Moon’s sudden proclamation of Cheon Il Guk.[92]  However, Cheon Il Guk was more than a reaction-formation. It built on elements at the core of his thinking.

On November 15, 2001, Rev. Moon declared Cheonju Pyeonghwa Tongil Guk (the Nation of Cosmic Peace and Unity).[93]  He explained,

In Cheon Ju (cosmos) Cheon means “heaven” in Chinese characters and is made up of the character for “two” which is drawn as parallel lines, and the character for “person.” The Chinese character Pyeong contains the character for “ten” which is drawn like a cross [the meeting of the vertical and horizontal]. What this means is that the unity of two people can achieve the unity of heaven and earth. The word Cheon Ju, incorporating the meaning “two people,” already carries the notion of peace. That is why we should call Cheonju Pyeonghwa Tongil Guk [the Nation of Cosmic Peace and Unity] Cheon Il Guk. That is what it means.[94]

The translation is straightforward: Guk (nation) Cheonju (of cosmic) Pyeong (peace) hwa (and) Tongil (unity). The explanation was esoteric, but it encapsulates Rev. Moon’s life-long philosophy of “two becoming one.” For him, this extends to the unity between mind and body in the individual; husband and wife, parents and children, elder and younger siblings in the family; leaders and followers, employers and employees, religious and secular realms in society; humankind and the natural environment in the world; heaven and earth, or what members referred to as spirit world and physical world, in the cosmos; and, most importantly, the unity between God and humankind.

It is important to recognize that the oneness envisioned by Rev. Moon is not a static monism. Its reality is more akin to Hegelian dialectics. The emphasis is less on being and more on becoming. For Rev. Moon, the principle of “two becoming one” is the creative element in the universe and would be the ruling dynamic of the Nation of Cosmic Peace and Unity.

The proclamation of Cheon Il Guk energized the movement. By December 15, 2001, the movement had conducted International Leadership Conferences in 34 venues across the country for the purpose of appointing Ambassadors of Peace.[95]  From November 26 to December 15, Mrs. Moon carried out an 8-city speaking tour with the theme “New Hope for Peace in America and the World.” She acknowledged, “Conflict, hatred and selfish desire are imbedded deeply within each of us and are still active… creating ever more serious disasters in new shapes and forms.” However, the thrust of her message was to pronounce the unified nation of cosmic peace.[96]

Rev. Moon announced his intention of establishing “world peace embassies” in 72 nations and the movement convened “A Summit of World Muslim leaders: Islam and a Future World of Peace” in Jakarta, Indonesia, December 21-23, 2001. Rev. Moon also directed that the cancelled clergy Blessing be rescheduled not for 12,000 but for 144,000 clergy couples the following April.

Cheon Il Guk was a remarkable example of philosophical and programmatic confluence. Importantly, it was grounded in the praxis of unification that undergirded the Unification Church and the FFWPU. However, it extended beyond the church and family-centered movement to a putative nation. As yet that nation existed only in embryonic form, but it had a name. Cheon il Guk would take on more trappings of nationhood in the years ahead. In defining the Cheon Il Guk Era as the time period to January 13, 2013 (twelve years after the Coronation of God’s Kingship) during which the substantial foundation for Cheon Il Guk was to be laid, Rev. Moon added a note of urgency but also established a horizon that was neither too far distant nor too overwhelmingly close. In any case, the movement’s transition to a new phase in its development was complete. It had taken on the task of nation-building.

 

Notes

[1] Sun Myung Moon, “Let Us Fulfill the Responsibility of the Third Creators,” Today’s World 22/9 (November/December 2001): 10.

[2] Moon, “Let’s Fulfill the Responsibility of the Third Creators,” 10.

[3] Moon, “Let’s Fulfill the Responsibility of the Third Creators,” 4-11. Originally, Rev. Moon established a deadline of 2012. This was subsequently extended to January 13, 2013.

[4] See John Gorenfeld, Bad Moon Rising (Sausalito, CA: PoliPont Press, 2008).

[5] Godwin D’Silva, “Doves of Peace: American Ministers Visit Korea,” Today’s World 21/5 (May 2000): 28-31. See also Levi Daugherty, “American Clergy Leadership Conference in Korea,” Unification News 19/6 (June 2000): 14-15.

[6] The movement held twenty-one rallies for South-North unification during the Spring of 2000. See Sun Jo Hwang, “Creating the Conditions for Reunifi¬ca-tion,” Today’s World 21/5 (May 2000): 2.

[7] See “National Family Flag Day,” Unification News 19/7 (July 2000): 1, 5.

[8] Godwin D’Silva, “Doves of Peace: American Ministers Visit Korea,” 28.

[9] Michael Jenkins, “With Faith All Things Can Be Achieved,” Unification News 19/7 (July 2000): 6-7.

[10] Joong-hyun Pak, “Harmony of Faiths Ensures Success of National Event,” Today’s World 21/9 (October 2000): 24-27.

[11] Louis Farrakhan, “Special Address to National Organizing Committee, Million Family March,” Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, D.C., September 21, 2000.

[12] Dan Fefferman, “Farrakhan on Slavery,” September 10, 2000. http://www. tparents.org/library/unification/talks/feffermn/Fefferman-Farrakhan.htm

[13] Chang Shik Yang, “Providential Meaning of the Mission Family March and Understanding Registration,” Unification News 19/11 (November 2000): 5-8.

[14] Francis X. Clines, “Thousands March for Family Life,” The New York Times, October 17, 2000.

[15] See Gregory Kane, “Inward Looking Farrakhan: A Changed Orator,” Baltimore Sun Sentinel, October 20, 2000.

[16] Louis Farrakhan, “Minister Farrakhan’s Speech at the MFM,” Unification News 19/10 (October 2000): 9.

[17] Jenkins, “With Faith All Things Can Be Achieved,” 7.

[18] Yang, “Providential Meaning of the Million Family March,” 5.

[19] Bruce Sutchar, “Chicago Hosts National Celebration of True Parents’ Work,” Unification News 19/12 (December 2000): 1, 6.

[20] Deborah Taylor, “Chicago: Testimonies and Reflections,” Unification News 19/12 (December 2000): 9.

[21] Michael Jenkins, “Chicago Victory Complete.” http://www.tparents.org/Library/ Unification/Talks/Jenkins/Jenkins1/Jenkins-050629.htm

[22] These were the International Relief and Friendship Foundation (IRFF), the International Religious Foundation (IRF), the Women’s Federation for World Peace (WFWP), and the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU). See Michael Mickler, “Toward an ‘Abel’ UN? The Unification Movement and the United Nations,” Journal of Unification Studies 9 (2008): 52-53.

[23] Mark Barry, “Executive Summary,” Renewing the United Nations and Building a Culture of Peace: A Report from Assembly 2000 (Tarrytown, NY: IIWFP, 2000), p. 1; Thomas Walsh, “Assembly 2000,” Unification News 19/8-9 (August/September 2000): 5.

[24] Sun Myung Moon, “Renewing the United Nations to Build Lasting Peace,” A Report from Assembly 2000, 73.

[25] Proceedings were published as The Millennium Declaration of the United Nations: A Response from Civil Society (NY: IIFWP, 2000).

[26] Donna Selig, “IIFWP International Education Programs,” IIFWP Newsletter 1/2 (December 2000): 1, 12.

[27] Frank Kaufmann, “The Founding of the North American Chapter of the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace (IIFWP), Unification News 19/12 (December 2000): 7.

[28] Bruce Sutchar, “Chicago Hosts National Celebration of True Parents’ Work,” Unification News 19/12 (December 2000): 1.

[29] The two most complete descriptions are Mary Jane Despres, “The Coronation Ceremony for the Kingship of God,” Unification News 20/1-2 (January-February 2001): 6-7 and “Coronation Ceremony for the Kingship of God,” Today’s World 22/1 (January 2001): 10-17.

[30] Sun Myung Moon, As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen (Washington, D.C.: The Washington Times Foundation, 2011), pp. 49-50.

[31] Sun Myung Moon, “The Path for America and Humanity in the Last Days,” Unification News 19/1 (January 2000): 2.

[32] The Japanese Lutheran theologian Kazoh Kitamuri, writing in the shadow of Hiroshima, published his well-known Theology of the Pain of God in 1946. European theologians, likewise, took issue with the traditional view of God as immutable, impassible, and self-sufficient. Black theologians held that God’s suffering was a necessary correlate of his identification with the oppressed. The American process philosopher Alfred North Whitehead famously described God as “the fellow-sufferer who understands.” See Richard Bauckman, “‘Only the Suffering of God Can Help’: Divine Possibility in Modern Theology,” Themelios 9/3 (April 1984): 6-12.

[33] Young Whi Kim, “Registration Blessing,” speech given in London, England, October 8, 2000. http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/kim/Kim-001008a.htm.

[34] Chang Shik Yang, “Introduction,” We Will Stand in Oneness (New York: HSA Publications, 2002), pp. xiv, xvii.

[35] Yang, “Introduction,” p. xxii.

[36] Sun Myung Moon, “The Path for America and Humanity in the New Millennium,” speech delivered during 50-state speaking tour, February-April 2001. http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/SunMyungMoon01/SM01-Tour.htm.

[37] Yang, “Introduction,” p. xix.

[38] Yang, “Introduction,” pp. xvii, xxii.

[39] Phillip Schanker, “Harlem Welcomes True Parents,” Unification News 20/5 (May 2001): 1.

[40] Yang, “Introduction,” pp. xviii, xx.

[41] Yang, “Introduction,” pp. xx-xxi.

[42] Phillip Schanker, “Providential Blessing Heralds Pentecost,” Unification News 20/6 (June 2001): 4.

[43] Schanker, “Providential Blessing Heralds Pentecost,” 4.

[44] Schanker, “Providential Blessing Heralds Pentecost,” 1.

[45] See “A Short Biography of Archbishop Milingo.” www.archbishopmilingo.org, and “Emmanuel Milingo,” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Emmanuel_Milingo.

[46] Angela Signorelli, “Intervention of a Holy Spirit,” Today’s World, January 2001, 29-30.

[47] “International Leaders Meeting,” Unification News 19/4-5 (April/May 2000): 4.

[48] Schanker, “Providential Blessing Heralds Pentecost,” 4.

[49] Emmanuel Milingo, “Statement of His Grace Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo,” May 26, 2001. Reprinted in Unification News 20/6 (June 2001): 6.

[50] Milingo, “Statement,” 6-7.

[51] Milingo, “Statement,” 7.

[52] Phillip Schanker, “Providential Blessing Heralds Pentecost,” Unification News 20/6 (June 2001): 5.

[53] Schanker, “Providential Blessing Heralds Pentecost,” 5.

[54] Michael Jenkins, “The Ministry of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo,” Unification News 20/8 (August 2001): 8.

[55] www.unification.net/news/news20010717.html

[56] Emmanuel Milingo, “Response to the Public Admonition from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” Statement released July 25, 2001, Washington, D.C. http://www.wewillstand.org/statements/milingo_20010725.html

[57] Mary Jane Despres, “Timeline of Events Surrounding Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo and Maria Sung,” August 31, 2001. http://www.tparents.org/ library/unification/talks/despres/Despres-MalingoTimeLine-1.htm

[58] Despres, “Timeline.”

[59] Despres, “Timeline.”

[60] Melinda Henneberger, “Vatican Journal: Between a Melodrama’s Lines; Interfaith Battle,” The New York Times, August 29, 2001.

[61] For a discussion of the Unification movement’s stance on celibacy in relation to the Roman Catholic Church, see Michael L. Mickler, “The Milingo Affair: Re-Thinking the Unification Position on Clerical Celibacy and Ecumenism,” Journal of Unification Studies 8 (2007): 41-59. http://www.journals.uts.edu/volume-viii-2007/117-the-milingo-affair-re-thinking-the-unification-position-on-clerical-celibacy-and-ecumenism.html.

[62] Despres, “Timeline.”

[63] Despres, “Timeline”; Henneberger, “Vatican Journal.”

[64] Michael Jenkins, “FFWPU News, 183. http://www.familyfed.org/

[65] Michael Jenkins, “We Will Stand in Oneness Holy Blessing,” Open Letter to Members, September 8, 2001. http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/ Talks/Jenkins/Jenkins1/Jenkins-010908.htm

[66] John Allen, “Zambian Archbishop Breaks with Rome; Wants to Help Reconcile Married Priests with the Catholic Church, He Says,” National Catholic Reporter, July 14, 2006.

[67] Milingo founded “Married Priests Now!” and celebrated mass with married clergy. Threatened with “canonical suspension,” he took the irrevocable step of installing four married men as bishops which resulted in his de facto excommun¬ication. He lost his Vatican passport in 2007 and was “defrocked,” that is, reduced to the lay state, making him no longer a member of the clergy in 2009. The four bishops he ordained withdrew from Married Priests Now the same year over his continued association with the Unification movement.

[68] “Let’s Unite and Conquer this New York MSG on September 22: Report of Leader’s Meeting on August 28, 2001.” http://www.tparents.org/library/ unification/talks/Yang/Yang-010828.htm

[69] FFWPU, “Statement Concerning Incorrect Presentation of Unification Teaching on Jesus Christ,” August 15, 2001. http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/ Talks/Jenkins/Jenkins1/Jenkins-010815.htm

[70] “Let’s Unite and Conquer.”

[71] “Let’s Unite and Conquer.”

[72] Michael Jenkins, “We Will Stand in Oneness Holy Blessing,” Open letter. September 8, 2001. http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Jenkins/ Jenkins1/Jenkins-010908.htm

[73] Michael Jenkins, “We Will Stand in Oneness Holy Blessing.”

[74] Michael Jenkins, “Text of New ACLC Letter,” September 12, 2001. http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Jenkins/Jenkins1/Jenkins-010912.htm

[75] Michael Jenkins, “A Time of Tragedy: Coming Together,” Unification News 20/10 (October 2001): 8.

[76] Chang Shik Yang, “Fear the Lord Jehovah,” Unification News 20/10 (October 2001): 6.

[77] Kathy Winings, “WTC: IRFF and UTS Respond!” Unification News 20/10 (October 2001): 9.

[78] Sun Myung Moon, “Leader’s Meeting on the Anniversary of HSA-UWC USA,” September 18, 2001.

[79] Jenkins, “A Time of Tragedy: Coming Together,” 8.

[80] Michael Jenkins, “Letter from Rev. Jenkins,” September 26, 2001. http://www. tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Jenkins/Jenkins1/Jenkins-010926.htm

[81] William Selig, “Blessing and Convocation of World Leaders,” Unification News 20/3 (March 2001): 1, 18, 20.

[82] Harold Payne and Birgit Gratzer, “Rev. Moon and the United Nations: A Challenge for the NGO Community,” Global Policy Forum (November 2001). http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/analysis/1101moon.htm.

[83] “Ambassadors for Peace,” Unification News 20/11 (November 2001): 7.

[84] “Application for becoming an Ambassador for Peace.” http://www. ambassadors4peace.org/application2.htm.

[85] “Ambassadors for Peace,” Unification News, 7.

[86] Thomas Walsh, “Preface,” Global Violence: Crisis and Hope, Proceedings of IIFWP Assembly 2001 (Tarrytown, NY: IIFWP, 2002), p. xi.

[87] Walsh, “Preface,” xi.

[88] “Response of the IIFWP to Controversy at the Assembly 2001 Conference,” Unification News 20/11 (November 2001), 10.

[89] Louis Farrakhan, “Luncheon Address,” in Global Violence: Crisis and Hope. Proceedings of IIFWP Assembly 2001 (Tarrytown, NY: IIFWP, 2002), pp. 221-30.

[90] Sun Myung Moon, “Loving Your Enemy in the Face of Terror – Twenty-One Leaders of the World’s Religions Meet,” Unofficial Notes by Nadine Andre. October 21, 2001. http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/sunmyungmoon01/ SM011021.htm

[91] Andre, “Loving Your Enemy in the Face of Terror.”

[92] The classic study is Leon Festinger’s When Prophecy Fails (1964). In studying “failed prophecies” of religious movements and in their participant-observation of a contemporary flying saucer cult, Festinger and his colleagues found, “an individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convin¬cing and converting other people to his view.” (3)

[93] Rev. and Mrs. Moon actually had introduced “the nation of cosmic peace and unity” during 8-city speaking tours of Korea (October 29-November 6) and Japan (November 5-12). Rev. Moon declared it to members on November 15.

[94] Sun Myung Moon, “Let Us Fulfill the Responsibility of the Third Creators,” 10.

[95] Joshua Cotter, “ILC Mobile,” Unification News 20/12 (December 2001): 12.

[96] Hak Ja Han Moon, “The Nation and World of Peace Sought by God and Humanity.” http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/HakJaHanMoon/HH011100a.htm