the Peaceful Coexistence of Pluralism and Unificationism

Transcription

1 A Study on Unification Thought s View on Religions: Towards the Peaceful Coexistence of Pluralism and Unificationism Jinsu Hwang, Ph.D. Professor, Cheongshim Graduate School of Theology, Korea I. Introduction Unification Thought (UT) tries to provide a unifying ground on which different perspectives can be embraced. The direction of UT that seeks for the unification of all sciences is essentially grounded in the view of God proclaimed by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. 1 Insofar as UT deals with God, it must also deal with the concrete context of religions and how its theistic view can be situated in the actual relations of religions. In this regard, this paper aims to delve into UT s view on religions, especially focusing on whether it is able to offer a way to overcome a relativistic limit in the current context of religious pluralism. As in the case of any thought based on monotheistic theology, UT s philosophy of religions is sustained by a fundamental premise that God exists. According to UT, God the Creator has been working in and through various religions that have led the history of human civilizations in the foundation of their spiritual, psychological, and cultural aspects: Numerous religions have emerged throughout history, but they were not just arbitrarily established by their founders. In order to save all of humankind, ultimately, God established specific founders in specific regions and at specific periods of time, seeking to save the people of each region and in each period. This is because God has been carrying on the dispensation of salvation for peoples of different languages, different customs, and different environments, and He has established religions in such a way that each was most suitable for a particular age, and for each region. 2 Even though many religions have formed, developed, mingled, and perished throughout history, thereby creating a great disparity among them, they have shared a common purpose to uplift the spirit of humanity in a way suitable to specific contexts where they were located. God, as the ultimate origin of all beings, has been living in the 1 UT in its Forward indicates that it sets forth a practical way by which a peaceful world might be realized, a world rein all human beings might live together as one family, united in one heart, with God as the True Parent. UTI, New Essentials of Unification Thought: Head-Wing Thought (Tokyo: Kogensha, 2006), viii. 2 UTI, New Essentials of Unification Thought: Head-Wing Thought,

2 entire history of humanity, and especially throughout the religions he has led human beings to the way of goodness by implanting appropriate spirituality in their hearts. Some people may find similarity between UT s view on religions and the idea of God-centered pluralism that emerged in the late 20 th century centering on the works of John Hick or Wilfred Cantwell Smith. The main characteristics of God-centered pluralism are roughly as follows. Each and every religion is a true religion insofar as it is the manifestation of the ultimate Real (God). Even though religions are not compatible with each other in the phenomenological realm, since the Real is transcendentally embedded in religions or in our experiences of them, they are all true as long as they share that common base. This point is similar to UT s theistic notion of religions. However, in order to maintain its pluralistic aspect, Godcentered pluralism inevitably emphasizes the transcendence of God who is believed to exist at a great epistemic distance from human beings. This is what UT cannot accept. UT s philosophy of religions does not stop at emphasizing the transcendence of God or the mystery of God-experience; it goes further by assuring us that God can be known and a true religion is one that teaches about God in the clearest way. This paper s primary purpose is to reveal UT s philosophy of religions by comparing and contrasting it with God-centered pluralism. UT s vision is important because it attempts to relieve a tension between the universality and the particularity of religions, which has been a perennial problem in the philosophy of religion, resulting in different notions such as exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. As long as religions share the absolute will of God who has been working in and through them, they can find in their mutual relationships a common base whether it be faith, love, or altruism and aim to realize harmony, unity, and reconciliation. However, since religions have lived their historical lives in different contexts, it is not acceptable for one belief system to simply reduce others into itself or hastily generalize them. In other words, each religion s uniqueness must fully be acknowledged. Therefore, in terms of respecting the particularity of religions, indiscreet religious syncretism must be avoided, and in terms of maintaining the universality of religions, we must be cautious about having an agnostic or exclusivistic attitude towards other religions. In this way, UT s view on religions tries to find a compatible way in which both the commonality and the difference among religions are embraced. Furthermore, centering upon the concept of God as Heavenly Parent, this paper will discuss a possibility to form a common base of heart among religions while maintaining their unique characteristics. In order to make sustainable the spirit of this age, that is, pluralism, this paper suggests that unificationism based on the existence of God and God s heart needs to coexist with pluralism. In terms of the coexistence of pluralism and unificationism, a way of peace among religions will be discussed. II. Is UT s View on Religions God-centered Pluralism? John Hick is regarded as one who established not only the notion of God-centered pluralism but also the branch of theology of religion itself in theological studies. He 2

3 borrows a Kantian distinction between noumenon and phenomenon and asserts that each religion is a different manifestation of the Real in different times and cultures. Since many religions have been established centering on the life and thought of their founders, the relationship among religions is inevitably weighed down with the differences of those founders. In order to overcome this, Hick emphasizes that the pluralistic aspects of religions must be thought to converge upon the existence of the transcendent God as their ground. He appraises this change from founder-centeredness to God-centeredness as a Copernican transition. 3 In a similar vein, Wilfred Cantwell Smith regards the essence of religion as faith and sees the different religious traditions as the results of this faith being accumulated to system and dogmatics in different cultural contexts. That is to say that an institution called religion does not exist prior to the human quality of faith. Rather, religion is just an accumulated form of life based on the manifestation of faith according to a cultural way of relating to the transcendent Being. 4 In this regard, Hick and Smith both agree that religions are deeply related to each other in the unfathomable depth of their existences. UT also maintains that the ultimate Being has been working through various religions that have formed according to their own contexts in order to elevate the spirituality of people. Religions share a common core and common purpose, and because of the fact that they have been grounded on that unified purpose, the roles and values of religions can be acknowledged and interpreted in a horizontal way. This point resonates with God-centered pluralism as mentioned above. In fact, as we look at the Introduction to World Scripture, which was published in the early 1990s sponsored by the International Religious Foundation (IRF) and the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace (IIFWP), it is obvious that the book acknowledges the main features of God-centered pluralism and resonates with its spirit to some extent. The following paragraphs seem to support this interpretation: Theologians of all faiths are affirming the positive worth of other religions and seeking to overcome the prejudice of an earlier time. It is now widely recognized that humanity's search for God, or for the Ultimate Reality, called by whatever name, is at the root of all religions. Today the call for a "world theology" has been sounded by many scholars, including Wilfred Cantwell Smith, John Hick, and Raimundo Panikkar. They explain that religions are not tight and consistent philosophical systems. While a particular religion may have certain predominant themes, it must--as the foundation of a culture--be broad enough to inform all aspects of human experience. Hence every religion has, within its own borders, considerable diversity of belief and practice. 5 Even though these paragraphs are not a direct message of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, 3 John Hick, God Has Many Names (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982), 36; 한인철, 종교다원주의의유형 ( 경기고양 : 한국기독교연구소, 2000), Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Towards a World Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1981); 한인철, 종교다원주의의유형, IRF, World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts (New York: Paragon House, 1991),

4 whose thought is essentially embedded in the ground of UT, it can be a hint to show UT s theological perspective on religions. In short, UT s view on religions emphasizes that centering on the ultimate Being who is the ground of all existences and all religious experiences, religions must overcome the barriers of theoretic differences, while embracing and respecting each other as true religions. Moreover, religions must take the initiative in pursuing world peace. In this regard, UT s perspective on religions and God-centered pluralism are related closely to each other. However, UT s views on the essence of religion and on the relation of religions are not fully identical with God-centered pluralism. As a matter of fact, in order to delve into the perspective of UT towards other religions, it is more effective to highlight its difference from God-centered pluralism. The prominent difference is as follows. In order for Godcentered pluralism to maintain its pluralistic aspect, its description of the transcendent Real must be neither reduced to nor dependent upon a certain religion s truth claim. If that were to be the case, one religion would become the only true religion based on its exclusive possession of truth and all other religions would fall into the category of inferior religion, or at worst, of false religion. Therefore, to sustain such a pluralistic aspect of religion, Hick, Smith, and Panikkar tend to take a similar methodology. As they all emphasize human beings limited cognitive power, they either put God into a transcendent realm or regard the experience of God as a mystic or holistic event that our speculative reason can never fully grasp. 6 What is problematic in this approach is that if God can be encountered only in the transcendent, mystic realm beyond human perception, there would be no ground whatsoever to identity each religion and religious experience as a manifestation of God. Moreover, those religions which do not have a theistic perspective have no reason to agree with God-centered pluralism. That is why those who criticize God-centered pluralism disclose its imperialistic aspect and suspect that it is merely a variation of Christian inclusivism. 7 According to UT s perspective on religions, religions can be understood on the same ground. Based on the providence of God who has been working in and through religions to lead them to uplift the spirit of humanity, religions have equal value with regard to their essential meaning and purpose. However, it does not necessarily mean that the contents of religions have equal value because of an infinite epistemic distance from God. The overall context of UT precisely indicates that God can be known to us, and what is true religion is one that teaches about God in the clearest way. Even though world religions share a fundamental purpose to lead humanity to the way of goodness, that goodness is in fact realized in knowing about God and in living according to the purpose of creation. In this regard, religions are different from each other depending on the extent of revealing the heart of God in the course of providence. Religion should connect us to the world of the heart the world of God s heart. 6 Raimon Panikkar, The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1993); Paul F. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2002), Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions,

5 Ultimately, it will have to teach in detail that God is the most miserable being in the entire cosmos. God is not happy in His greatness. On the contrary, God feels miserable, full of pain, bitterness and sorrow. He is indignant about the countless situations when He was painfully mistreated. A religion must appear that teaches about God s heart in detail. When a religion emerges that is able to teach the heart of God and connect people with His heart, it will fulfill the mission of religion in the present time and for all time to come. And by enabling people to comfort God and even to represent His heart, it is sure that this religion will remain in the Last Days. 8 Therefore, despite some structural similarity between UT s notion of religions and God-centered pluralism, it seems difficult for the former to belong completely to the category of pluralism. Since UT talks about a meta-narrative, that is, God s providence that penetrates the entire history of humanity, its approach is closer to inclusivism or even exclusivism in the spectrum of philosophy of religions. According to UT, religions today hold in common the fundamental purpose of religion, but when we think of the responsibility of religion to reveal the ultimate ground of all beings, it is not that all religions stand on the same line. Difference among religions depends not only upon the extent of explicitly conceptualizing and thematizing truth, as Rahner points out, 9 but also upon how much the heart of God can be revealed in their teachings and lives. 10 On the one hand, UT s view on religions maintains a pluralistic aspect as it admits that there are true religions. It points out that the ultimate being each religion believes in whether personal or impersonal is in fact a different name of the same God, and that religions have led the spiritual mind of human beings in specific ways suitable for their historical contexts. On the other hand, however, UT indicates that each and every religion is a means to nurture and educate human beings to the extent of being completely united with God in love. That final stage is called 신인애일체 ( 神 愛 体 ). Therefore, what is pluralistic is the means through which to achieve such a fundamental goal. The goal itself which different mediums (religions) endeavor to realize is not plural but one, while those mediums have developed in various ways. There is a mountain model that is typically used to explain God-centered pluralism: the mountain having different ways to the same top. Let us apply this model to UT s view. If there is a religion that has approached closer to the top of the mountain than any others, it is possible for that religion to explain to others a highway to arrive at the top. Furthermore, it can make a new way that connects other ways to the top, or put signposts on crossroads thereby providing mountain-climbers with a comprehensive road map. In this way, while UT s philosophy of religions has a structural similarity with God-centered pluralism in admitting that there are various ways to the top of the mountain, it also has an 8 The Committee for the Compilation of True Parents Words, Chambumo Gyeong: the Holy Scripture of Cheon Il Guk (Seoul: Sunghwa Pub., 2015), Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith (London: Darton Longman & Todd, 1978), 심정개념을여기서자세히다룰수는없지만, 이성적이고논리적인차원뿐만아니라정 ( 情 ) 적이고의 ( 意 ) 적인양상의뿌리로서인격의전인적 (holistic) 근거라고볼수있고, 이는오늘날의영성 ( 靈性 ) 개념과가깝게맞닿아있다. 5

6 inclusivistic aspect because it admits the existence of a specific religion, which is in the position to lead other religious ways to the top: When we look at Mt. Everest, we see a dominant mountain that is part of a range of smaller, connected peaks. In the same way, all religions of the world are like mountain peaks standing in their position in a mountain range, having contributed to the ages of history and looking up to a central point. If there is no main peak in the mountain range, particular peaks might try to assert themselves but none can become the central point. A new faith needs to lead the providential age, binding all religious realms together as one. It will not be one that espouses a vague and conceptual God, such as we have often seen throughout history. It will be a faith with the religious background to lead and govern daily life by means of setting people s internal motivation in order. It will exercise a leadership role among the teachers of all world religions. The new faith will achieve the liberation of religion. Even the term religion will disappear. We must raise our standard to imagine how religion can bear its ideal fruit. 11 This transition from God-centered pluralism to inclusivism can also be found in the concept of salvation in Unification theology. According to Divine Principle, to save a sick person is to restore him to the condition of health he had before the illness. To save a drowning person is to restore him to the state he was in before he fell in the water. Likewise, to save a person suffering under the yoke of sin means to restore him to his original, sinless state. 12 This concept of salvation has two aspects: one is gradual salvation and the other is decisive salvation. Gradual salvation means to nurture the spiritual body 13 of the human being, which had fallen to the bottom because of the fall, by elevating the state of her or his spiritual mind and intellect. The decisive salvation refers to the transition from the lineage of evil to that of good through the Blessing of the Messiah, that is, True Parents. In other words, the gradual salvation is to lead human beings up to the state in which the human fall happened, and the decisive salvation is to erase the trace of the fall and open the gate through which the complete state of God-human unity in love can be realized. These gradual and decisive salvations resonate with God-centered pluralism and UT s inclusivistic vision, respectively. According to Unification theology, world religions have been working for the gradual salvation of humanity in an appropriate way for their cultural, historical contexts, whereas the way to decisive salvation has been made possible through the Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church. In the perspective of the gradual salvation process, all world religions are true insofar as they have been participating in God s providence. As mentioned earlier, they are all true and different from each other as their forms of 11 Chambumo Gyeong, HAS-UWC, Exposition of Divine Principle (Seoul: Sunghwa pub., 2002), 문선명선생은창조세계가인간의육신과영인체를기반으로유형실체세계 ( 지상계 ) 와무형실체세계 ( 영계 ) 로구성되어있음을밝히고있다. 세계기독교통일신령협회, 원리강론 ( 서울 : 성화출판사, 1995),

7 life have developed in different contexts. This is precisely one of the characteristics of pluralism. However, in the perspective of the decisive salvation, a special (or exclusive) role is given to the Unification Church to make a conclusion of the gradual salvation process. This is none other than the aspect of (exclusivistic) inclusivism. It does not mean that the Unification Church is trying to occupy the top of the mountain in an exclusivistic way. In its view, religion is always a means, not the end, in substantiating God s will. According to Rev. Moon, once religions fulfill their responsibility as a means to establish God s ideal world, they will be dissolved into the life of humanity and disappear. Therefore, once all religions arrive at the top of the mountain, that would be the end of the era of religion at least of its institutionalized form in which God s heart becomes not only the ground of the mind of each person but also the essential grammar of the culture of the entire world in terms of the culture of heart. It will then turn out that the peak point of the mountain is not an exclusively small space occupied by one religion demanding an authoritative role; rather, it is a huge place in which all religious people live together for the sake of others centering on God s love as it is experienced as the loving ground of unified value and norm. Then, is not there any exclusivistic factor in UT s view on religions? As long as they presuppose the existence of God who governs the lives of religions, it is hard to find any exclusivistic attitude towards other religions. However, UT has firmly stood against atheism, materialism, and communism that deny the existence of God, and has put much energy into overcoming them. 14 In the perspective of UT, materialism or communism is like a road to a precipice, so an exclusivistic moment to block such a way is needed. This is not pursuing any complete severance in relationship. Rather, it is an indispensable moment to restore a broken relationship. What must be followed after blocking the road to a precipice is not to cut off or close the way completely but to connect it to ways to the top of the mountain, thus embracing those who had been climbing up on that road. III. The Peaceful Coexistence of Pluralism and Unificationism As discussed above, UT s view on religions is based on the existence of God as the origin of all beings. UT s God is far from an unknowable God who is experienced only in a mystic, intuitional realm, as indicated in God-centered pluralism. Rather, God is the one who resonates with our heart, that is, the ground of intellect, emotion, and will, more closely and intimately than anyone else including ourselves. 15 Rev. Moon identifies the shape of such a God-centered heart with the shape of the heart in a parent-child relationship. While Jesus proclaimed God as the abba in heaven, Rev. Moon has revealed God as the parent of all humankind. 16 This concept of God as Heavenly Parent is naturally related to the concept of 14 이에관해서는문선명선생의가르침을토대로그의제자이상헌이정리한다음책을참조 : 이상헌, 공산주의의종언 ( 서울 : 일념, 1986). 15 다음을참조. 황진수, 세계평화통일가정연합영성의핵심, 심정 : 심정의개념과심정적삶의의미, 통일사상연구 9 (2015). 16 문선명선생말씀선집 53 권,

8 religion. All historical religions have been providential mediums to restore the realm of the heart between God and the human being as that between parent and children. God as parent does not make any discrimination in revealing Godself to humankind. In every corner of human civilizations, God has been raising people s heart through various religions in terms of individually universal courses of truth and spirituality. Therefore, UT indicates that the teachings of world religions, despite their external differences, can converge upon the same point. That point might be a personal God for some religions and an impersonal principle for some others, but the difference simply lies in whether it refers to the personality or to the internal principle of God as parent. This way of understanding the relationship between God and the human being in terms of a parent-child heart is to be distinguished from analogy of being in a Catholic theology and analogy of faith in a Protestant theology. The foundation of the imitatio Dei is based neither merely on the act of existing in resemblance to the idea of God nor on the transcendent grace of God upon the fallen human beings. Embracing both of them, it refers to an analogy of heart that points to the fullness of the unified heart with love between parent and child. 17 In this regard, UT s view on religions avoids a Barthian concern. A religious teaching does not have to be negated as an idolatrous human projection. What is needed for all religious people today is an open attitude for dialogue in pursuit of finding God s heart in different religious teachings and sharing fraternal love among them centering on God s parental heart: The God in whom humankind believes is my God and at the same time the God of everyone. He is our God, the God of the entire world, and the God of heaven and earth. In addition, God is the universal Parent. There are many denominations in the world advocating for God. However, we no longer need the God whose only advocates are those found within the realm of denomination. The only people who can truly call God Father are those who transcend denomination and understand that God is the center of heaven and earth representing everything. Such people can attend God on earth. 18 How can UT s message that all religious people transcending religious, denominational boundaries must form a brotherly-sisterly relationship centering on God as parent be received in this age of religious pluralism? On a surface level, such a metanarrative is itself a clear clue that it goes beyond the context of pluralism. However, what must be highlighted in UT s interreligious view is that it strongly supports many positive aspects of religious pluralism such as mutual respect, cooperation, tolerance, reconciliation, and so on. What religious pluralism aims to do is to make an open space in which religions stop their futile conflict, recognize differences, respect the value of each other, and work in cooperation to come up with wisdom for the peaceful coexistence of humanity. UT s view on religions actually urges us to establish a concrete context in which such a space for harmony can be sustained permanently, centering on God as the loving parent of all humankind. 17 다음을참조. 황진수, 존재의유비, 신앙의유비, 심정의유비, 통일신학연구 13 (2008): Chambumo Gyeong,

9 Some might point out that to establish God as the common ground of all religions can be seen as a one-sided violence of monotheism. There has been a perspective that since any universal standard of peace no matter how well it is intended inevitably implies the danger of exclusivistic violence, we need to approach the ground of relationship in a relative way based on a specific context of human life. 19 It is true that such a view fits well in the current pluralistic world in which various factors of life are incessantly crossing over each other. However, it must be noted that unless there is a fundamental force to embrace diversity, to maintain diversity itself would be an impossible dream. It means that we need to reflect upon the ground of a driving force that leads us to respect and to embrace diversity and multiplicity. In the context of religious pluralism, many religions represent such a driving force in terms of agape, compassion, benevolence, righteousness, and so on. What is common in them is that they all refer to a kind of force that directs us to live for the sake of others. Whatever we call such directivity that makes possible for us to form a horizontal relationship while acknowledging our unavoidable diversity, it is true that without that directive force, any cherished virtues in religious pluralism such as mutual respect or tolerance would be under a continuous threat of being broken like a thin coat of ice. Therefore, we cannot but face a paradoxical conclusion that in order to establish a truly pluralistic society, each one of us must be the embodiment of that loving force for the sake of others as a universal foundation of peace. UT regards the origin of that directive force as the heart of God as parent, especially the heart centering on the purpose of creation. The heart of God, and the true love emerging from it, is the ultimate driving force through which all humanity can share the heart of brother and sister. 20 In this way, we can form a heart culture in which each person or community s inherent individuality can be respected, diversity can be preserved as diversity, and at the same time a universal value can gradually and profoundly be embodied by all of us. However, as mentioned above, if there is no such ground of divine parental heart, any attempt to enhance interreligious cooperation and harmony would result in only a tentative gathering without a clear direction, and that would merely repeat its formal idealism. We all know through history that to seek for the unchanging ideal of love and peace in this changing world is almost impossible. We live in a world in which the term peace sounds even absurd. Establishing the ultimate standard of peace is not likely to be achieved in the midst of conflicting political interests. This situation is found in the realm of religions as well. There is no religion that is separated from the secular world. Each and every religion exists in an inseparable relation with its social location. Therefore, it is highly likely that any movement for religious coalition and peace would sooner or later come to face an internally paradoxical situation. UT, in this regard, emphasizes that only the parental love of God can be the fundamental driving force to maintain perpetual peace in the world. Only in such a world where various religions share a family heart centering on God as parent, could there emerge a context in which pluralism and unificationism can be 19 Paul F. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions, 통일사상연구원, 통일사상요강( 두익사상 ),

10 compatible and coexisting with each other. The concept of unification in UT is not something achievable in a one-sided approach ignoring individuality. It is realized only in a harmonious give-and-receive relationship in which each person s unique individuality is highly respected. Rev. Moon talks about the concept of peace, which is very similar with that of unification, as follows: 평화 (Pyung-Hwa, 平和 ) means literally what is evenly horizontal. It is to harmonize on an even ground. On such a ground, if the essence of the participant is changed, the letter should be 화 ( 化 ) as in 화학 ( 化學, chemistry), but this 화 ( 和 ) in 평화 ( 平和 ) means harmony without altering the essence. 21 When we look at this concept of unification through a parent-child paradigm, it becomes more intuitively clear. In the family, each child has a unique character, while that character resonates with the heart of the parents. That is why one child cannot be reduced to or replaced by another. Likewise, if we as unique individuals perceive the root of our thought and action to be resonating with the heart of God, any exclusivistic attitude towards others would be avoided. Pluralism in its true sense is based on the one and only characteristic of each human being as a child of God. According to UT, since God s parental heart is engraved in the heart of the human being, the world of pluralism and the world of unificationism are merged in the unfathomable depth of heart. 22 Nowadays, religious pluralism has leaned towards the acceptance model 23 that emphasizes an unbridgeable difference among religions. This tendency, rooted in Ludwig Wittgenstein, has developed through George Lindbeck and D. Z. Philips in terms of philosophy of language. An interesting point is that when Wittgenstein tried to emphasize multi-layered meanings of language depending on various cultural, linguistic contexts, he used the term family resemblance to highlight the similar, but never same characteristics of those meanings. 24 I want to see this concept of family resemblance in a different perspective. According to UT s view on religions, this term can be in fact a very appropriate term to describe relationships among religions. Each religion has emerged from its own historical context over a long period of time, so its depth of thought and characteristic traits cannot easily be generalized in a universal manner. When we look at the world of religions through the lens of family, it is as though the life of each religion is a uniquely born divine child whose character cannot be replaced by any other. Even though some religions might look like twins, they can never be reduced to each other. However, family members resemble each other because they were born in resemblance to the origin of their lives. Beyond a phenomenological similarity among them, if that similarity is fundamentally rooted in the heart of God embedded in their hearts, world religions as brothers and sisters are able to enjoy their unique individuality while unified in the depth of heart. In this way, pluralism and unificationism can coexist in the ways of religious lives. 21 문선명선생말씀선집 250권, 황진수, 통일종교신학의정립을위한연구, 청심논총 10 (2013): Paul F. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1958), 67. George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: The Westminst er Press, 1984),

11 IV. Conclusion As we have discussed, UT s philosophy of religions begins with the ultimate origin of all beings as the common ground of religions. Even though there has been a great discrepancy among religions as they have developed in different contexts, UT emphasizes that they have shared a fundamental purpose driven by God to uplift the spirit of humanity in a way appropriate for their social/cultural context. Acknowledging the role of religion to enhance spirituality, UT admits that all historical religions are true insofar as they have participated in this process of gradual salvation. In this regard, this paper points out that UT s philosophy of religions resonates with the essence of God-centered pluralism in the 20 th century. However, UT does not repeat the inner-contradiction of God-centered pluralism. In order for God-centered pluralism to maintain its pluralistic aspect, its description of the transcendent Real must be neither reduced to nor dependent upon a certain religion s truth claim. What is problematic in this approach is that if God can be encountered only in the transcendent, mystic realm beyond human perception, there would be no ground to identity religion and religious experience as the manifestation of God. UT precisely indicates that God can be known to us, and what is true religion is one that teaches about God in the clearest way. Even though world religions share a fundamental purpose to lead humanity to the way of goodness, that goodness is in fact realized in knowing about God and in living according to the purpose of creation. Rev. Moon recognizes that religions are different from each other depending on the extent of revealing the heart of God in the course of providence. In the perspective of the gradual salvation process, all world religions are true insofar as they have been participating in God s providence. However, in the perspective of decisive salvation, a special role to make the conclusion of the gradual salvation process is given to a specific religion (the Unification Church). This is none other than the aspect of inclusivism. It does not mean that the Unification Church is trying to occupy the top of the mountain in an exclusivistic way. Religion is always a means, not the end, in substantiating God s will. The peak point of the mountain is not an exclusively small space occupied by only one religion; rather, it is a huge place in which all religious people live together for the sake of others centering on God s love as it is experienced as the loving ground of unified value and norm. UT s God is far from an unknowable God who is experienced only in a mystic, intuitional realm, as indicated in God-centered pluralism. God is the one who resonates with our heart, that is, the ground of intellect, emotion, and will, more closely and intimately than anyone else including ourselves. Rev. Moon identifies the shape of such a God-centered heart with the shape of the heart in a parent-child relationship. Only in such a world where various religions share a family heart centering on God as parent, can there emerge a context in which pluralism and unificationism can be compatible and coexist with each other. When we look at the world of religions through the lens of family, it is as though the life of each religion is a uniquely born divine child whose 11

12 character cannot completely be replaced by the others. However, family members resemble each other because they were born in resemblance to the origin of their lives. Beyond a phenomenological similarity among them, if that similarity is fundamentally rooted in the heart of God embedded in their hearts, world religions as brothers and sisters are able to enjoy their unique individuality while unified in the depth of heart. In this way, pluralism and unificationism can coexist in the ways of religious lives. Bibliography HAS-UWC. Exposition of Divine Principle. Seoul: Sunghwa pub., Hick, John. God Has Many Names. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, IRF, World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts. New York: Paragon House, Knitter, Paul F. Introducing Theologies of Religions. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, Lindbeck, George A. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age.Philadelphia: TheWestminster Press, Panikkar, Raimon. The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. London: Darton Longman & Todd, Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. Towards a World Theology. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, The Committee for the Compilation of True Parents Words. Chambumo Gyeong: the Holy Scripture of Cheon Il Guk. Seoul: Sunghwa Pub., UTI. New Essentials of Unification Thought: Head-Wing Thought. Tokyo: Kogensha, Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 문선명선생말씀편찬위원회편. 문선명선생말씀선집. 서울 : 성화출판사, 세계기독교통일신령협회. 원리강론. 서울 : 성화출판사, 이상헌. 공산주의의종언. 서울 : 일념, 통일사상연구원. 통일사상요강 ( 두익사상 ). 충남천안 : 선문대학교출판부, 한인철. 종교다원주의의유형. 경기고양 : 한국기독교연구소, 황진수. 세계평화통일가정연합영성의핵심, 심정 : 심정의개념과심정적삶의의미. 통일사상연구 9 (2015). 존재의유비, 신앙의유비, 심정의유비. 통일신학연구 13 (2008): 통일종교신학의정립을위한연구. 청심논총 10 (2013):