Sarah M. Lewis
Sun Myung Moon (1920–2012) was born in what would become North Korea. His family converted to (Protestant) Christianity when he was a child. When Moon was 16 years old, he said that Jesus appeared to him and told him that he, Moon, had been chosen to complete the mission that Jesus had failed to complete. Moon embraced Christianity and after a short time studying engineering turned to full-time preaching. After some years he founded The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity in 1954.1 As the name suggests, one of the aims was to unify Christianity. But for Moon, the idea of unification went far beyond one religion. His aim was to unite all religions, all nations, and all peoples under the umbrella of his religion. In 1996, Moon formed the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification as the institutional successor to the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. Now, the majority of the work of the Unification movement is done under the banner of the Universal Peace Federation (UPF).2 The UPF’s website is extensive and highlights the vast number of ventures in which the group is involved and the work it does to promote world peace.
The theology of the Unification Church is contained within Divine Principle.3 Divine Principle is believed to clarify the meaning of the Old and New Testaments and through various types of analyses explain God’s current and future plan for humanity. It is seen as the Completed Testament.
To form an understanding of Unification Church belief, particularly the formation and purpose of humanity, it is necessary to look initially at the Unificationist theories of the nature of God and the Principle of Creation (see Divine Principle; Chryssides 1991; Kim 1976). One of the leading theologians within the Unification Church, Young Oon Kim, writes, “By understanding the relationship of Creator and creature in its many ramifications, one can discover not only the reality and power of God, but also the nature and destiny of man, the value and purpose of the universe, the significance of human history, and the reasons for our hope of eternal life” (1976: 2).
Unificationism argues that God is composed of dual characteristics, including male and female, and all existence is generated by these (Kim 1976; Lewis 2004: 71). So, everything in existence possesses dual characteristics and these dualities are complete opposites, yet they are also complementary units; they must both be present and function together correctly. Adam and Eve, as the first human ancestors, were an extension of God in the physical world; they were a part of God’s nature and reflected the male and female characteristics of God. Unificationism teaches that God’s purpose in creating was to give him joy. It urges that God’s most essential aspect is Heart (Divine Principle, 23), the impulse to love an object; God could not feel joy if he existed alone so he created to satisfy his desire to love and care for something.
Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to receive God’s Three Blessings—to grow to maturity, to marry and procreate, and to have dominion over creation. Had Adam and Eve fulfilled the Three Blessings, they would have become the True Parents of humanity and thus established the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. However, Eve was tempted by Satan (the spiritual Fall) before she had completed her growth period. Eve’s subsequent relationship with Adam (the physical Fall) was based on lust not love, and this symbolized the Fall of humanity.4 The sin was passed down through the generations and will only be eradicated by the Messiah.
History for the Unification Church tells of the uphill struggle of humanity to reunite itself with God (Lee 1985). Throughout history there has, for Unificationists, been a constant struggle between Cain and Abel ideologies (manifested, in part, as communism and democracy); this takes place on every level from individual to global, as the struggle between God and Satan. History in Unificationism is composed of a series of unsuccessful attempts to restore the original relationship between God and his creation, and it is taught that God has worked through history in an attempt to establish his Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
Immediately after the Fall of Adam and Eve, according to the Unification Church, God began to build the foundation upon which he could send the Messiah to realign humanity to him. The Unification Church teaches of the need for True Parents, that is, male and female, to lead humanity so the belief is that Jesus, as the Messiah or Second Adam, needed to marry to be in a position to reverse the Fall of the first human ancestors (Lewis 2012: 30) and to restore humanity to God; there needed to be the duality of male and female, to reflect the dual nature of God. The Fall was, according to Unification thought, the breaking down of the family unit; to reverse the Fall a family unit must be established. It is for this reason that Jesus could not fulfill his messianic role; he did not marry and did not produce children.
Jesus’ Crucifixion is not recognized by the Unification Church as a part of God’s original plan (Lewis 2012: 30). Divine Principle (79) states that “it was a grievous error to crucify Jesus Christ” and when Jesus’ body was invaded by Satan he became unable to provide physical salvation. Divine Principle (149) states that “Salvation through redemption by the cross is spiritual only.” But because humanity fell spiritually (Eve and Satan) and physically (Eve and Adam), a new Messiah is needed to bring physical, and therefore complete, salvation; to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
So, with the mission given to Jesus only being partially fulfilled, it is taught that a new Messiah had to be sent by God, a living physical Messiah (Lewis 2012: 31), and this person is known as the Lord of the Second Advent. Divine Principle does not state that Moon is the Lord of the Second Advent, but the information given leads to that conclusion. Unification theology teaches that the New Testament age resembles the Old Testament age and through the study of both one may predict what will occur in the present age (Kim 1976: 250), and that is how the identity of the new Messiah is determined.
Many of Moon’s speeches have made reference to the new messianic role, but it was in the early 1990s that he was explicit about his being the “True Parent” and the Messiah. In various speeches made in 1992 he moved between declaring himself as “True Parent” and “Messiah” (Moon 1992b) and declaring that the Messiah is a couple, which therefore included his wife, Hak Ja Han, in the messiahship. He states that “the returning Messiah will come as the True Parents” and “the True Parents who come as the Messiah” (Moon 1992a). He also noted: “The True Parents will not make their advent on the clouds from the sky. Instead, they will appear in this age and on this earth as Koreans” (Moon 1992a).
Moon, believed to have been born sinless, although with the freewill to sin, is in a position to grant salvation. This is done through the Blessing ceremony, which is the way to eradicate the Original Sin that has infected humanity (Lewis 2011: 582). Moon and Hak Ja Han and their biological children are the True Family and mediator between God and the rest of humanity. It is through the Blessing that others become part of the True Family. They then begin their own families and these families are a part of the new lineage, centered on God not Satan. Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han presided over the Blessing ceremonies and take on the sins of the couples they are blessing. With their words and actions they are believed to be engrafting those they bless onto their own family, and by extension God’s family (Colford 1994: 6). There are several components to the Blessing with the actual “public” ceremony being just one aspect (see Chryssides 1991).
Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han were married in 1960, and this marriage is termed the “Marriage of the Lamb.” It was the most important union within the Unification Church and serves as a model marriage for members of the movement. With the Unificationist belief that the Kingdom of Heaven can only be established through the creation of True Families at the Blessing, the event is clearly of vital importance. Colford (1994: 6–8) urges that the most important goal for a Unificationist is to participate in the Blessing ceremony and it is the most significant of Unificationist rituals. Each couple stands in the position of a perfected couple, creating sinless children, separate from Satan for the first time in human history.
The first mass wedding was in 1961 and saw the marriage of thirty-six couples. Guerra (1994) says that there is personal, historical, and cosmic significance to mass weddings; they restore historical and racial relationships, especially with the fact that the couples matched are usually from different nations or races. Through their holy mass weddings, the Unification Church believes that it is creating a new heavenly family tradition. It is trying to heal the broken relationships that have arisen not only in the family but also in society and the whole world.
Clearly the theology of the Unification Church, as presented in Divine Principle, is an essential underpinning to the movement. However, in practice the emphasis is on doing rather than just believing. Divine Principle gives the foundation for the beliefs, but it is the actions of the members that are important and members, as noted earlier, play the key role in fulfilling God’s plan for humanity.
Eileen Barker ([1989] 1992) presents several reasons why new religious movements (NRMs) might appeal to individuals. They include the opportunity for religious experience, the opportunity for self-development, and the opportunity for Kingdom building. This latter appeal is of most relevance to the Unification Church. The aim of the Unification Church is to build God’s Kingdom of Heaven on earth and members are key to this happening. Unificationists are not waiting for salvation to be done to them, but play a role in bringing it about themselves. Barker says:
the alternative which the Unification Church offers is one which seems both to recognise and to provide an explanation for the evils of the contemporary world. By making sense of the past, it offers hope for the future; it offers a clear direction, a clear leadership which knows what to do and how to do it. It is, paradoxically, a movement which offers freedom from directionless choices. ([1984] 1989: 243)
The belief that its members work for the purification of society and the consequent establishment of God’s Kingdom of Heaven on earth was also present in the Korean NRMs contemporary with the Unification Church.5 Korean NRMs, including the Unification Church, grew out of a country that had been under occupation by the Japanese, that had been divided after the Second World War, and that had faced a war within its own borders. The idea of working to create something visible, usually a perfect world, is one of the attractions for converts to NRMs and never was this so pertinent than in Korea in the post–Second World War era.
With the Korean people feeling unstable and spiritually starved, Christianity began to flourish, in part in the form of NRMs. The emphasis on the need to save society and country, as well as individuals, was popular under the circumstances and one that encompassed the needs of the Korean people at this time (Prunner 1980). Leaders like Moon realized that theology had to be relevant to social problems and the main tenet of this was the belief that true Christianity is to solve the han (discontent) among the people.
Beginning as a Korean nationalist movement, alongside many others emerging in Korea at that time, the Unification Church took a more adventurous step and sent missionaries out of Korea to other parts of the world. It saw the United States particularly as a place of democracy and religious liberty and therefore having a role to play in God’s plan, so Korea may have been the starting point, but Moon’s vision was global.
Partly to fulfill the theology and vision of the movement and partly as an attempt to make the movement more appealing and acceptable to outsiders, Moon founded numerous organizations that would turn belief in to action (see Lewis 2011, 2012). “All Unificationist organizations are focussed on interreligious dialogue and world peace through unification and the promulgation of family values” (Lewis 2012: 37–38). The key organization and main face of the Unification Church now is the UPF (founded in 2005),6 which has involvement in all kinds of issues and events all over the world. The branches of the UPF in different parts of the world focus on different issues. The UPF in the West focuses largely on the Middle East and works with Christians, Jews, and Muslims. It also works on Africa Projects relating to HIV and AIDS. The UPF in Korea works toward the reunification of Korea, and different branches focus on the things of relevance in the country in which each branch is based. However, the ultimate aim of the UPF as a whole is to create peace and unity on earth.
The Unification Church has had great success in gathering support for its ventures in promoting dialogue and peace, and also its environmental and humanitarian work. It would appear that gaining members through acceptance of its theology has not been anywhere close to its success in gaining support for the organizations it has created. Many key figures from the non-Unificationist world have shown support for these ventures (Lewis 2012: 38). For example, when the International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences was at its peak, speakers included some of the world’s greatest scientists including Nobel Prize winners (Lewis 2011). Other organizations boast a following from influential individuals from all over the world. One of the reasons is likely to be that “the narrative is ideological and politicised and taps into common and shared values, things that many ideological people cannot help but want to be involved in, primarily world peace and environmentalism” (Lewis 2012: 40).
The Unification Church has become about more than just accepting the messiahship of Sun Myung Moon and the theology that supports that. It has developed organizations, significantly now the UPF, that have grown out of the religion. Although the main tenets of the UPF have developed out of its religious beliefs, it does not require followers to accept the whole theological package; it is the social message that is giving strength and support to the movement.
There has been plenty of discussion surrounding the defining of NRMs, the usefulness of the term “new religious movement” and why that term is preferable to “cult.”7 The decision of sociologists to introduce the term “NRM” to replace the term “cult,” with its negative connotations, made no difference to those who wanted to retain the negativity that the word “cult” holds. NRMs became so controversial that an entire movement emerged whose aim was to try to “rescue” people from them and also to alert society of their perceived danger. This is known as the anti-cult movement (ACM).
Beckford (1999: 104) notes that it is not surprising that NRMs became controversial. He gives three reasons for this. First, so many of them emerged during the same time frame that it felt like an invasion. Second, those that were based in Eastern philosophies were foreign and things foreign are viewed with suspicion. Third, the people who joined the majority of the postwar NRMs were well-educated, wealthy (or at least comfortably off), middle-class people. If it had been the nameless homeless who were joining, it is unlikely there would have been such concern.
What the average person knows about NRMs they learn from the media, which is understandable. However, the problem is that media reports on NRMs are usually based on material supplied by anti-cultists; the reports are subjective, lack balance, and become sensationalist. Richardson and van Driel (1997: 116) examine “research carried out in the United States on the issue of possible bias and misinformation about new religions among journalists.” They question the “objectivity” and “neutrality” of journalists when writing about NRMs. James Beckford (1999: 115) notes that the term “cult” is: “a self-contained and self-standing category which is of interest to the mass media for its own sake. Journalists need no other reason for writing about any particular NRM except that it is counted as a cult. This categorisation is sufficient to justify a story.”
Beckford (1999: 110) highlights ways in which he believes the media “helps to generate and perpetuate conflict,” noting that journalists mostly get their material from the ACM. He notes further that a close relationship exists between the ACM and the media, and it is hard for anyone else to break into that. “Journalists function as the principal gatekeepers of public opinion especially on matters with which the person-in-the-street is not normally familiar” (Beckford, 1999: 110). Journalists are more likely to contact and quote members of the ACM than academic researchers when they want to write an article about NRMs. For example, when Michael Howard, the then Home Secretary (see BBC 2005; Rosenbaum 2006; Doughty and Salkeld 2005), banned Moon from Britain, the “expert” interviewed was Ian Haworth,8 an anti-cultist.
Beckford (1999: 105) suggests one reason for the close relationship between newspaper journalists and the ACM is that the ACM does not present any theological information, is not claiming to be opposed to NRMs on theological grounds, and is not attempting to present a different religion to replace that of the NRM, and this is appealing to journalists. And for its part, the ACM says it is not attacking religion because they do not see the NRM as a religion. Beckford suggests, “the critics’ aim is to disqualify ‘cults’ from the category of ‘religion’ altogether, thereby framing problems as ‘economic,’ ‘political’ or ‘psychological’” (1999: 105). In other words, newspapers do not say anything about the fact that members of NRMs are individuals with beliefs, religious beliefs, but simply describe them as people involved in something corrupt or immoral. Newspapers do not use the kind of language that would lead the readers to think of the religious and belief aspect of the NRM. An image of “weird and dangerous” (Beckford 1999: 106) goings on in NRMs is created, rather than an image of ordinary people following their beliefs and practicing their religion.
The Unification Church has been accused of numerous offences, the most significant being that it brainwashes people into joining, making it one of the most controversial NRMs. Those who argue that the Unification Church brainwashes its members believe that no one would join such a group through choice and that the only explanation there could be for someone becoming a member of the Unification Church is that they had been brainwashed into doing so. So, conversion would not be through active choice but through passive brainwashing, where free will is removed.
Two key figures in the allegation that the Unification Church uses brainwashing in its recruitment are Steven Hassan and Margaret Singer. Hassan had been a member of the Unification Church and when he left he trained as a therapist and saw his role as “fighting destructive cults” (Hassan [1988] 1990: 1). He paints a horrifying picture of the “Moon cult” (76) and of other NRMs, describing his own experiences from the early process of indoctrination to the traumas of actually leaving the group. He states, “I am especially concerned with everyone’s right to know about the highly sophisticated techniques used by destructive cults to recruit, keep, and exploit highly talented, productive people” (Hassan [1988] 1990: 2).
Margaret Singer believes that “cults are abusive and destructive to varying degrees” (Singer 1996: 88). She says they are violent, “engage in conspiracy and fraud,” and “take away our freedom” (88–93). In a chapter headed “The Threat of Intimidation” (Singer 1996: 209ff.), Singer discusses “cults” that “remain small” and “do not aspire to rule the world” (209) and cults that are the opposite, and it is into this category that the Unification Church is placed. Singer says that “one tactic is to recruit and exploit the professional sector, co-opting those who by their training can serve the cult’s goals” (Singer 1996: 209). A second tactic, she says, is “to scare off critics” and a third to “spread themselves worldwide” where “by gaining footholds in government, the media, and the educational system, cults seek credibility and power and feign acceptance into the mainstream” (Singer 1996: 209). It is in this chapter that “Academics” are discussed (Singer 1996: 217). Singer states: “Some people committed to cultic groups become downright illogical in their support. For example, there is a small claque of social scientists who have become procult apologists” (Singer 1996: 217). Singer then makes reference to “trips to exotic places” as a reason why this might be so. Her first reference is to Eileen Barker’s The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? ([1984] 1989), about which Singer is highly critical. Barker’s aim was to examine whether members of the Unification Church had been brainwashed into joining. Singer criticizes Barker’s research methods, her conclusions, and how they are presented. Singer goes on to say that “cult apologists blame the victims and protect the villains” (Singer 1996: 219) and even states that the cult apologists “funnel potential recruits to cults.”
One of the key events that fueled distrust of the Unification Church was its loss of a libel action it brought again the Daily Mail. On May 29, 1978, the Daily Mail published an article based on an interview with the mother of a member of the Unification Church (Barker [1984] 1989: 121). The content of the article compared the practices of the Unification Church to those used against prisoners during the Korean War and Second World War. It described the “sleep deprivation, protein withdrawal, sugar-buzzing” and the terrorizing of the individual. Members were described as “robots, glassyeyed and mindless” and the words of Moon as “half-baked ravings” (Barker [1984] 1989: 121). “The verdict of the jury was that the article was not libellous. The verdict was upheld by three Lords of the Court of Appeal” (122). Undoubtedly this event would have done an enormous amount of damage to the Unification Church and consolidated its position as a group dangerous to society. This was clear in December 1995 when Moon attempted to visit London to address his followers and selected guests personally. Michael Howard stated that this denial was “conducive to the public good” (see BBC 2005; Rosenbaum 2006; Doughty and Salkeld 2005). In an article after Moon’s death, the Daily Mail emphasizes the role it perceived it had in bringing the “truth” of the movement out into the open, with the article heading “Messiah of Misery: How the Leader of the Moonies Went from Peasant to Billionaire by Leading Cult that Brainwashed Millions . . . until the Daily Mail Exposed Him as a Fraud” (Rawstorne 2012).
Undoubtedly, there are people who have had unpleasant experiences as members of some NRMs, and not just those caught up in a major event such as that of Jonestown or Waco. If anti-cultists meet those who appear to have come to harm during their membership in an NRM, it is not surprising that the conclusion is reached that the NRM was to blame. However, the problem is the generalizing done by people such as Hassan and Singer. Barker says, “It cannot be stressed enough that almost all generalisation about NRMs is bound to be untrue if it is applied to all the movements” (Barker [1989] 1992: 10).
There does not appear to be the acknowledgment that abuse and deception and misery can occur in any situation and for any number of reasons and that these are not restricted to members of NRMs. Wherever such negatives exist, they need to be dealt with on an individual basis, using the law as necessary and appropriate, without making the assumption that all NRMs are the same and that one person’s experience in an NRM will be the same as those of others. An assumption appears to be being made that “world religions” are safe but NRMs are not, but where the distinction is to be made is unclear. Barker says:
It is also true, however, that it is not only Moonies, but believers of all sorts of religions who are anxious that others should be privy to their own particular brand of Truth, who will present their beliefs in ways which they feel are most likely to get through to those whom they can persuade to listen. One rarely finds evangelists of any faith eagerly divulging the more esoteric or the less edifying aspects of their ideologies, their institutions or their leader’s lives. Most religions have some skeletons in their cupboards. ([1984] 1989: 179)
Barker’s sociological approach to the question of brainwashing highlights numerous problems with the research that supports the brainwashing allegations (Barker [1984] 1989: 121–148). Barker details the evidence for the existence and use of brainwashing and explains the problems with it and the conclusions it leads to. One of her main arguments is the significant number of people who do not join the movement even if they have attended a workshop and also the high dropout rate of members; neither of these facts supports the brainwashing allegations. Barker also concludes that experiencing a Unification Church workshop does not put a person in a more vulnerable position than another situation would at that same time (147–148).
In The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? Barker aims to be factual rather than passionate. She did speak with parents of members of NRMs and former members of NRMs, and she states clearly that the latter gave her a perspective she could not have got from current members. She is, however, critical of assumptions. The assumption that members are brainwashed limits inquiry and understanding of factors such as the “general social/political/economic milieu” (Barker [1984] 1989: 8) or the convert’s more immediate social background. Barker argues that making assumptions removes the need to look beyond, which is essential to gain an accurate picture of NRMs and conversion to them.
Academic researchers see NRMs in a wider context of being, so they see more than just the controversy, but this is not the case with the ACM (Beckford 1999). The ACM sees academic researchers as apologetics for NRMs who interfere with the ACM’s aim to destroy NRMs. The argument surrounding brainwashing and NRMs may be seen by many now as an old outmoded argument, but it very much lives on within the ACM.
The death of Sun Myung Moon was the end of an era, but it does not have to mean the end of the Unification Church. Roy Wallis (1979: 178) notes that schisms “have a disproportionate tendency to occur on the death of charismatic leaders,” when authority becomes destabilized. It is true that followers can struggle to come to terms with the death of their leader and that there can be a fight for leadership after the leader’s death, resulting in schism or even collapse and disappearance of the group. Much depends on the preparations the NRM has undertaken in advance of losing the leader, how institutionalized the group has become, the actual role the leader played in the movement, and what the views are of the movement on life after death. Moon’s advancing years meant that discussions would have been held and arrangements put in place ready for when his death occurred, and this is the best way for an NRM to prepare for the loss of its founder and to attempt to secure its future.
Moon’s obituary in The Guardian (Reed 2012) says that, without Moon, the future of the Unification Church looks bleak. It states that “a crucial test of a new religion is whether it transfers to the next generation after its founder’s demise . . . the prospects for . . . [the] Unification church . . . look poor.” The first part of this comment is fair but one cannot be so sure that the Unification Church cannot survive without Moon. Yes, he was the founder, the leader, the inspiration and the Messiah, but he was also the epitome of controversy, and the removal of a controversial charismatic leader may mean that the NRM eventually becomes more acceptable to those outside. However, it appears that a time of disorder has occurred within the Unification Church, in spite of having put in place a structure that could have allowed for an almost seamless transition to a future without Moon.
In 2008, Hyung Jin Moon, the youngest son of Moon, was chosen as the International President of the Unification Church. Kook Jin Moon, another son, had already been appointed President of the Tongil Foundation, the Unification Church’s business empire. The appointment by Moon of two of his sons to take a lead in his organization could have been a good strategic move as it showed that Moon himself had decided on the way forward for the Unification Church and therefore the new appointments would have had a greater chance of being acceptable to members. However, serious problems developed, even before Moon’s death and by early 2013, both sons had been removed from their positions (see Lewis 2012; Moon 2012a; Kwon 2011).
There have been other problems. One of the most significant was the decision of Moon’s third son (his eldest living son) Hyun Jin Moon to break away from the main organization, believing that it was becoming too inward looking and moving away from the core of Moon’s teachings (Lewis 2012: 42). The ultimate expression of this rift was the decision made by Hyun Jin Moon to not attend his father’s funeral (Moon 2012b). Hyun Jin Moon describes this decision as a painful one. He says:
Clearly, this is a serious step. However, the Unification Church leadership, including members of my own family, has distorted his life work and teaching beyond all recognition. Their memorial service will try to legitimatize an idea of his legacy that has nothing to do with the principles that he lived by. My attendance would appear to endorse what they are doing. I do not.
He goes on to say that he does not believe the main body of the Unification Church has remained true to his father’s beliefs, role, and vision of “committing his entire life and foundation to the providential mission of building a world of peace and reconciliation, centered upon the vision of One Family under God.” He even states that he has “long acknowledged that there was truth to at least some of the criticisms leveled by society against the Unification movement.” Hyun Jin Moon may have distanced himself from the main body of the Unification Church, but he does have significant support for his Global Peace Foundation.9
Having received and fought against criticism from outsiders for many years, it is unfortunate that it is members of the “True Family” who are now posing the greatest threat to the future of the Unification Church, particularly when a belief in traditional family values stands at the core. Sun Myung Moon’s death should neither constitute a failure of his vision nor a significant problem for the Unification Church. Moon completed his task in being the Messiah, provided humanity with its True Parents, fathered perfect children, and engrafted adoptive children into his Family, thus restoring the divine lineage into his own family and beginning the creation of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. If the Unification Church was just a religion, it would make sense theologically for the remaining half of the messiahship, Hak Ja Han, to lead the movement. But, the wealthy and influential business side of the Unification Church is making matters significantly more complicated. The most likely way for Moon’s legacy to live on is through the work carried out under the umbrella of the Universal Peace Federation, as that has brought significant support from outsiders to the Unification Church. But the church will need a solid leadership that can realign the focus from dealing with rifts and schisms to building a future for the movement; otherwise the outlook is certainly unpromising.
1. See Breen (1997) and Introvigne (2000) for Moon’s early history.
2. Universal Peace Federation http://www.upf.org/.
3. Divine Principle was published in the mid-1960s and translated into English in 1973. The 1973 edition is cited hereinafter in the text as Divine Principle.
4. Outline of the Principle, 56; hereinafter cited in the text.
5. See Prunner 1980; Chryssides 1991; Lewis 2004, 2011.
6. Universal Peace Federation, http://www.upf.org/.
7. See Troeltsch 1931; Barker 1992; Saliba 1995; Barrett 1998, 2001; Chryssides 1999.
8. Cult Information Centre, http://www.cultinformation.org.uk/.
9. Global Peace Foundation, http://www.globalpeace.org/.
Allan, John. 1980. The Rising of the Moon. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
Barker, Eileen. [1984] 1989. The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? Oxford: Basil Blackwell Limited.
Barker, Eileen. [1989] 1992. New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. London: HMSO.
Barrett, David. 1998. Sects, “Cults” and Alternative Religions. London: Blandford.
———. 2001. The New Believers. London: Cassell.
BBC. 2005. “Moonies Leader Returns to Britain.” November 5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4408276.stm.
Beckford, James A. 1999. “The Mass Media and New Religious Movements.” In New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response, edited by B. Wilson and J. Cresswell. London: Routledge. 103–119.
Breen, Michael. 1997. Sun Myung Moon: The Early Years 1920–53. Hurstpierpoint, UK: Refuge Books.
Chryssides, George D. 1991. The Advent of Sun Myung Moon. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
———. 1999. Exploring New Religions. London: Cassell.
Colford, Betsy. 1994. “Practical Responses to Evil: A Unification Perspective.” Speech given at the Inter-Religious Federation for World Peace, “The Reality of Evil and the Response of the World’s Religions,” Seoul, Korea.
Divine Principle. 1973. New York: HSAUWC.
Doughty, Steve, and Luke Salkeld. 2005. “Throw Out the Moonies’ Messiah, Demand MPs.” Daily Mail, November 5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-367693/Throw-Moonies-messiah-demand-MPs.html#ixzz2b1Fua26V.
Hassan, Steven. [1988] 1990. Combatting Cult Mind Control. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Guerra, Anthony. 1994. “The Unification Understanding of the Problem of Evil.” Speech given at the Inter-Religious Federation for World Peace, “The Reality of Evil and the Response of the World’s Religions,” Seoul, Korea.
Introvigne, Massimo. 2000. The Unification Church. Studies in Contemporary Religion. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA: Signature Books.
Kim, Young Oon. 1976. Unification Theology and Christian Thought. New York: HSAUWC.
Kwon, Se Jin. 2011. “In-Depth Report Legal Dispute over the Unification Church-Owned Parking Lot In Yeouido, Seoul.” Chosun Monthly, January 23. http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/KookJinMoon/KookJinMoon-110123.pdf.
Lee, S. H. 1985. The End of Communism. New York: Unification Thought Institute.
Lewis, Sarah. 2004. “The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (Unification Church).” In Encyclopedia of New Religions, edited by Christopher Partridge, 71–74. Oxford: Lion Publishing.
———. 2011. “The Unification Movement: Science, Religion and Absolute Values.” In Religion and the Authority of Science, edited by James R. Lewis and Olav Hamer, 571–588. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2012. “Global and Solitary: Dialogue and the Unification Church.” International Journal for the Study of New Religions 3, no. 1: 27–45.
Moon, Hyun Jin. 2012a. “Call for Resignation of Tongil Foundation Chairman Kook Jin Moon & Call to Resolve the Parc1 Crisis.” April 17. http://www.tparents.org/moon-talks/HyunJinMoon-12/HyunJinMoon-120417.pdf.
———. 2012b. “Statement by Dr. Hyun Jin Moon regarding Unification Church Funeral Service for Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon.” September 13. http://www.hyunjinmoon.com/blog/statement-uc-funeral/.
Moon, Sun Myung. 1992a. “Congratulatory Address to International Women’s Federation for World Peace.” Speech given at, Seoul, Korea, April 10. http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/SunMyungMoon92/SM920410.htm.
———. 1992b. “The Reappearance of the True Parents and the Ideal Family.” Speech given in Seoul, Korea, July 6. http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/SunMyungMoon92/SunMyungMoon-920706.htm.
Outline of the Principle, Level 4. 1980. New York: HSAUWC.
Prunner, G. 1980. “The New Religions in Korean Society.” Korea Journal 20, no. 2 (February). 4–15
Rawstorne, Tom. 2012. “Messiah of Misery: How the Leader of the Moonies Went from Peasant to Billionaire by Leading Cult That Brainwashed Millions . . . until the Daily Mail Exposed Him as a Fraud.” Daily Mail Online, September 4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197931/Messiah-misery-He-went-peasant-billionaire-leading-cult-brainwashed-millions--Mail-exposed-fraud.html.
Reed, Christopher. 2012. “The Rev Sun Myung Moon Obituary.” The Guardian, September 2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/02/rev-sun-myung-moon.
Richardson, James T., and Barend van Driel. 1997. “Journalists’ Attitudes toward New Religious Movements.” Review of Religious Research 39, no. 2: 116–136. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3512177.
Rosenbaum, Martin. 2006. “Howard Defiant over Moonie Chief.” BBC, May 9. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4754641.stm.
Saliba, John. 1995. Perspectives on New Religious Movements. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Singer, Margaret. 1996. Cults in our Midst: The Hidden Menace in our Everyday Lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Troeltsch, Ernst. 1931. The Social Teaching of the Christian Church. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Wallis, Roy. 1979. Salvation and Protest: Studies of Social and Religious Movements. New York: St Martin’s Press.