Chambumo-ron Lectures & Discussion 1st March 2025 - Part 3/4

So moving on to the next section of the first lecture, this is as far as we've got anyway. The central pillar of the completion of the Providence is an important concept. In the past, we would have said that the central Providence would be Judaism and Christianity, with peripheral ideas manifesting at the central position of the cosmos. The central pillar of the Providence serves as a standard reference point when advancing towards completing the Providence. It manifests at the central position of the cosmos where Heavenly Parent and humanity are united in a composite Oneness. This composite Oneness means sharing the same substance, similar to the idea of Jesus being of the same substance as God. The center of Heaven is a place where Heavenly Parent and True Parents are united, and the biblical idea is to be united in heart. God is a parent, a father and mother, and we are God's children; this is a metaphorical relationship rather than a literal one.

The only begotten daughter, True Mother, is the central pillar of the completion of the Providence on Earth. The Providence of Heaven can only be completed with the presence of the only begotten son or only begotten daughter on Earth. After the Heavenly Parent's Foundation Day, the central pillar of the Providence of completion is True Mother, the only begotten daughter in the flesh. This raises the question of whether True Mother is literally God, as Jesus was understood to be. True Mother is the only one who can embody Heavenly Parent in substance. Jesus is the only begotten son, the second person of the Trinity, and nobody else can fill that space because nobody else is of the same substance as God. Anyone who can embody Heavenly Parent in substance can unite with True Father in the Heavenly realm and thus fulfill the dream of Heavenly Parent and humanity on Earth.

The 2,000-year history of Christianity has been a history of preparing for the only begotten daughter. The Second Coming Messiah came for the marriage supper of the Lamb, and the birth of the only begotten daughter is necessary for the Second Coming Messiah to fulfill this responsibility. The 2,000-year history of Christianity has been one of preparing to welcome the only begotten daughter of God. In earlier versions of Chong Churon, there was a bullet point stating that the only begotten son and the only begotten daughter are one. This statement has been deleted from the current versions, but it raises interesting questions about what it means. Does it imply that they will be united in marriage? Heavenly Parent guided True Mother, the only begotten daughter, to meet and receive the holy marriage of the Second Coming Messiah by guiding her to make the personal decision to enter into the sacred union.

When Father chose Mother, she had to decide whether she wanted to take on that heavy responsibility. It's similar to how various princes in our royal family have had girlfriends who reconsidered their roles. For example, when Prince William married Catherine, she had to think about the implications of becoming a public figure. It’s a heavy responsibility to marry someone who has that role in the future. The heart in relating to True Mother and True Parents is rooted in the Heavenly lineage. The relationship between True Parents and blessed families is not merely a parent-child relationship based on faith, which is more aligned with the Christian idea. Instead, it is a relationship connected by the lineage of Heavenly Parents, similar to the Jewish concept of blood lineage.

If your parents are Christians and you decide not to believe in God, you can distance yourself from that faith. However, if your parents are Jews, you remain Jewish regardless of your beliefs. This difference in lineage is significant. In the 1940s, many people were persecuted because they had Jewish ancestry, even if they did not practice the faith. In contrast, if your parents are Christians, you can choose to reject that identity. For blessed children, they cannot say they are not blessed children; they are part of the second generation, whether they like it or not. They may choose not to attend church or believe in God, but their status as blessed children remains. This is a fundamentally different relationship.

Now, let's explore the concept of filial piety. What is filial piety? Father taught that the center and foundation of the universe is the relationship between a father and his children. This is not merely about our physical parents but about our relationship with God. The understanding is that I am God's son or daughter, which is more important than being the child of my natural parents. Father emphasized that the fundamental relationship is with God, our Heavenly Parent. He taught that the most basic and central truth of humanity is that God is the Father and we are His children. We are all created as children of God, and there is nothing closer or more ultimate than when Father and son are one in love, life, and heart.

Father also spoke about conscience, stating that we can recover our original selves only when we submit absolutely to the commands of our conscience. The conscience is more important than our parents or any teacher. It is crucial to honour and respect our conscience as we would honour God. The conscience sees everything and objects whenever the body schemes to do something wrong. When True Mother talks about filial piety, we must consider what that means and refer back to what Father taught about the fundamental relationship. The absolute standards of filial piety are rooted in love, respect, and devotion to parents and elders. The original Korean word for filial piety is 'yoang', which embodies these concepts. Father coined new terms to express these ideas, and we should look at what Jesus said about honouring our parents, as found in the commandments.

Jesus taught that honouring one's father and mother is essential, and he critiqued those who nullified this commandment for the sake of tradition. He pointed out that many people honour God with their lips while their hearts are far from Him. This raises questions about our own spiritual community and how we approach donations and support for our families. My wife and I were fortunate to inherit money from our parents, which allowed us to liberate generations. However, I reflect on the importance of honouring our parents and the teachings of Jesus in this context.

Then it's that knocked me out so I couldn't come to the thing the following Sunday. There hasn't been another one since. Ah dear, so it's still in the box. I was hoping I could get a chance to go and put it on for some ceremony before I pass off into the spiritual world. Who knows? Never mind. Sorry, well, she's got one as well. We both have one each in this big box. Yeah, so I keep it under the bed. Okay, anyway, thinking about this, you know what Jesus was saying here, and think about, well, why are there so many problems with the Family Federation in Japan especially? I would say because people donated lots of money for ancestor liberation, went into debt, borrowed money from relatives, antagonised their parents, antagonised uncles, aunts, cousins, and even their children because they didn't invest in their children's education. I would say that, yes, that's not honouring. That's not doing the right thing. They're not honouring their father and mother. We don't have to take care of our parents or our children; it's more important to donate money to this or donate money to that, and I would say that's wrong.

I love Islam because Muhammad said everybody has to go on Hajj once in their lifetime if they can. But in order to be able to go on Hajj, they have to make sure they have no debts. If they're running a business, their business has to be okay while they go there for however many days it is. They've looked after their children and their parents and all these things, so they've done all of that, and only then do they have permission to go on Hajj. That's a good rule, and that's what we should do ourselves. Sometimes people borrow money from a bank or use a credit card to go and liberate their ancestors, and I said, well, who paid for them to be liberated? The bank? You can't do that. That's not the principle. Another thing I love from Islam is that if you die in debt, what happens to you? You go to hell, even if you are martyred. But if you are martyred and you're in debt, you go to hell. Okay, that's a good rule. That's what we should adopt within our own spiritual community: don't get into debt, especially by doing God's Providence, thinking you're doing God's Will and getting into debt. I think that's a big mistake. I'm not making this up; it's the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon him.

I'm not supposed to do that. Are you minding trying to be a good Catholic? There you have to clarify two of them. A good debt is when you have to borrow money to get a mortgage, but Muslims have very strict rules about all of these things and interest and everything like that. They worked it out very well, I would say, generally speaking. Anyway, let's move on. Nearly got to the end of the first lecture, I think. Conforming to the new truth that leads the Providence of the new era, Heavenly Parents' revelations are progressively declared through different stages according to the advancement of the Providence. While spirit and truth are unique and eternal, the expression evolves in degree and method with time. You have to let go of old beliefs and accept and adapt to the new truth.

Okay, let's explore what this means. What is truth? I came across this not very long ago: Pilate's famous question, 'What is truth?' So when Jesus came in front of Pilate, Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to you.' Then Pilate said, 'What is the truth?' Did Jesus answer that question? What is truth? He didn't answer that question. I think truth is that you believe in the one, something like this. Okay, so this is why he didn't answer the question. That's what is important. Why didn't Jesus answer the question? Pilate's famous question, 'What is truth?' is a category mistake from a Biblical point of view since truth is not about what, but about who. Truth is not something objective and static, you know, like geometry or something like that or a nice creed, a thing to be known and studied from a distance. No, truth is up close and personal. Understood in this way, truth is a way of living, a mode of existence, and inherently relational.

It is a mistake to think of God as an object to be studied. No, God is not some static thing, but rather a dynamic and forceful person. That's why you know the name God gave Moses: what's your name? God said, 'Yahweh,' usually translated into English as 'I am who I am.' Okay, that's a bad translation. That's not what the Hebrew means because 'I am who I am' means I'm static. The Hebrew translation is dynamic: 'I will be what I will be.' Yes, I mean, I read J. You know, if I want to understand what the Hebrew Bible means, I have to read Jonathan Sacks because Christians don't understand what the Hebrew Bible means. You need to read the rabbis to understand what the Hebrew Old Testament means. Anyway, so yeah, God is not some static thing like Aristotle's first cause, which has influenced Christianity hugely. If you read the Westminster Confession of Faith, it's very much like that: a dynamic, forceful person. So God is personal, unlike the Greek philosophers, oh yeah, like Aristotle, who tended to regard God as little more than a machine or device that caused the universe to get going.

The Lord God of Israel is intensely personal, feeling, emotional, compassionate, angry, and so on. The Hebrew view of God is that of a living person, a spoken word, and a fiery breath that broods over the events of the physical world. You get that very much when you read the Hebrew Bible: the presence of God as a person with emotion, feeling, love, compassion, and sometimes anger and punishment. All very much like that, a real dynamic relationship. That's why when you look at Abraham and Moses and the prophets, when they're talking to God, it's that kind of personal, intense relationship they have with God—an incredibly intense one. Unlike, oh, God is the first cause that started the universe, which is very much the Greek view that then went on to influence Christianity a lot.

I can't remember; I just came across it somewhere. I wish I knew who wrote it. No, it's not, but it sounds like it. Yes, also, if you put the question or the current explanation as 'I am who I am,' 'I will be what I will be,' the thing in Hebrew, you can translate it both ways. You see, in English, it's either this or it's that, whereas in Hebrew, it's both within the same word. I'll come back to that later. Okay, so that's what truth is. So why the focus on beliefs and truth? Well, truth in the Bible is focused on truthfulness, honesty, and integrity. It's not focused on true beliefs; there's no interest in that. It's focused upon truthfulness, being an honest person, a truthful person, having integrity. So the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible, but generally, the focus is upon moral truth and integrity, not upon abstract truth. You have to believe this and this and this and this and this. The moral truth is about right and wrong; that's the Mosaic law, and of course, even before that, don't eat the fruit. Hence the focus on knowing and keeping the moral law: learn the commandments by heart.

As it says in the Psalms, 'Speaketh the truth in his heart.' I love that expression in English: to learn something off by heart. When you learn something off by heart, it becomes part of you. It's not that I memorised it; I've learned it off by heart. I've integrated it into myself. That's the way it should be. And that's why Jesus, what did he say? Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life.' He didn't say, 'What I'm saying is true.' He never said, 'I'm teaching the truth.' He said, 'I am the truth.' Yeah, he himself, that's his whole idea. It's who, not about what. It's about who. Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life.' He was a true person, and in the Unification thoughts, especially, it talks about an individual truth body. That's what Jesus was; he was an individual truth body. He was an embodiment of the truth, and that's why when he spoke, he wasn't just talking about things he learned off by heart; it was coming from him. And that's why when he spoke, it touched people's hearts because he was speaking from there.

Then in Deuteronomy, it says, 'And now Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the Lord's commands and decrees that I'm giving you today for your own good?' Yeah, it's not, 'Oh, you have to believe this, this, and this, or this, this, and this abstract truth.' You have to live your life according to the moral law. The focus on truth claims by religions has led to conflict because it implies that what others believe is false. Got it? Creeds and other creeds, if you focus upon truth, you have to believe the right thing. Then everybody says, 'Well, we believe the truth, and what you believe is not the truth; it's false,' and therefore this leads to conflicts. Yeah, and that's why Father said in his peace messages that religion leads to these kinds of conflicts because the focus is all upon, 'Do you believe this? Do you believe what I believe?' You know, I've often had this experience with Christians; they want to know, 'Well, how does what you believe differ from what I believe?' Who cares? But for some people, what you believe is the most important thing, more important than how you live your life. So I would say how you live your life is much more important than what you believe.

So there's something true. Well, it's the Enlightenment tradition; it's something logical and coherent that leads to rationalism, like, you know, mathematics. Does it correspond to reality? This empirical view led to the development of science and scientific theories. Does it work? It's a sort of utilitarian point of view. You look at the Houses of Parliament and think, 'Who on earth designed something with all these funny doors and banging on the doors and this and that and the other?' But it works. So to what extent is the Chong B run true in that sense? Is it logical and coherent? Does it correspond to the world the way the world is? Does it work? So this is something, you know, I'm more interested in wisdom than I am in truth. The dictionary definition defines wisdom as the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, and lasting. Knowledge, on the other hand, is information gained through experience, reasoning, or acquaintance. Knowledge can exist without wisdom, but not the other way round. One can be knowledgeable without being wise. Wisdom is the fitting application of knowledge. Knowledge understands the light has turned red; wisdom applies the brakes. Knowledge sees the quicksand; wisdom decides not to enter it.

Okay, I'm sure I edited lots of stuff out. Carry on, what have I missed out? Wisdom is the right, and the other one is, I think it's then I say knowledge is the light is red. You see, oh, the light is red; therefore, I should stop. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, deciding to evaluate things is really important. So that's the higher standard where you can evaluate these things. Yeah, I left that out. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're right. I should say knowledge, understanding, and then evaluation, which is the wisdom side. Yeah, and poor old David Hannah, I never want to talk about it anyway. Oh, never mind, I won't bring it up now because he was teaching, and then somebody came along and said, 'Not teaching the Tombo Ron, just teaching what you always teach, the UPF thing.' So that, sorry, that, yeah, so you know some people think what you believe and what you teach is the most important thing as opposed to, well, you know, I'm teaching these people, so I need to teach them in a way that's good for them, not just, 'Here, this is Proverbs of David and Solomon.' I encourage people to read the Proverbs for gaining wisdom and instruction, for understanding words of insight, for receiving instruction and prudent behaviour, doing what is right and just and fair, for giving prudence to those who are simple, knowledge and discretion to the young. Let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and the riddles of the wise. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

So I came across somebody who despises wisdom and instruction three or four weeks ago. So then let's have a look and see what it says in the Divine Principle. Let us examine some other reasons a new expression of truth must appear. So this is what Mother is relating: the need to have a new expression of truth. The Bible is not the truth itself but rather a textbook teaching the truth. Here, truth is sort of an Enlightenment view, like rationalism, correct belief, and all that sort of thing. It renders important parts of the truth in symbols and parables since these are open to various interpretations. There have arisen numerous disagreements among believers, causing them to divide into many denominations. The primary cause of denominational division lies in the character of the Bible, not in the people. Is that true or not? I disagree myself. Yeah, Joanna, yeah, it, yeah, yeah, I mean, the Jewish view is that there are 70 possible interpretations of every verse. The Christian view is there's only one correct interpretation of a particular verse, and if you don't accept my interpretation of this particular verse, you can't come to this church anymore. You've got to go and start your own church, and I think that's the problem. The problem is not the Bible; it's the people. Where this says it's not the people, it's the Bible, I think the principle is wrong here. So every translation is an interpretation; every reading is an interpretation. So, you know, you know yourself, who here can speak more than one language fluently? Come on, you can speak more than one language fluently, and Peter and Francis and Brigid and see who else. When you're speaking, is it possible to have an exact translation from one language to another? No, every translation is an interpretation. You just look in a dictionary for one word, and you can translate it, and it gives you a selection of three, four, five, up to ten words maybe, and you have to decide which translation is the best interpretation. It can never be something exact; that's the reality. Every time you read, you know, it's the same as people who have read what's called reading circles. People have a book they read together, and they meet up and talk about it, and each person reads something different in this particular novel because it speaks to them in a different kind of way, and they associate with a particular character in that novel depending upon who they are as a person.

So again, you get many different interpretations. It's not that one interpretation is the best; maybe some are better than others without a doubt, and more interesting than others. Some interpretations are boring, but it depends upon the person. Every reading is an interpretation, and that's inevitable, whether you like it or not. I would say I disagree with that little passage in the Divine Principle book. It's the Bible that causes division or people thinking correct belief or truth is the most important. The Divine Principle states that the strife between denominations will only grow more intractable unless a new truth emerges, which can elucidate the symbols and parables obscuring the essential truths of the Bible. Without this new truth, God's providence, which comes through the unification of Christianity, can never reach its goal. This is why Jesus promised that in the last days, He would give the new word of truth.

One of the great things about the Bible is that there are many different ways in which it can be interpreted. That's why people are still reading the same book 3,000 years later; for every age, it's fresh and new, and everybody reads it differently. I remember going to synagogue from time to time, and one rabbi said, 'Oh, you know, you look at the Psalms. Some of them are about terrible suffering and persecution, all these dreadful things that happened to the Jews. It's okay, we don't need those; let's delete those Psalms. We don't need them anymore.' You don't know whether you will or not; that's the thing. There's always something for everybody in every age, and people read and interpret these things differently.

Did this approach of one truth work? Christians tried to do that with a nine-point creed: everybody has to believe this, this, and this, or they have to leave. Did that work to unify Christianity? No. Then they tried one leader, the Pope. Did that work? No. That's one of the reasons for the split between the Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church. One way to worship didn't work; the Russian Orthodox Church itself split because they had a conflict over whether they should cross themselves with two fingers or three fingers. There are divisions everywhere. The Baptists say they don't believe in sprinkling; you have to be baptised by full immersion, etc. Many divisions happen because everybody thinks they have the truth, the right leader, or are worshipping the right way. If you don't worship this way, then you go to hell, etc.

I went to Holy Trinity Brompton many years ago, and the vicar there, a wonderful person whose name I can't remember now, was talking at a leadership conference. There were Christians there from every denomination. He said it's wonderful we have Christians here of every denomination, every colour, every nationality, all gathered together. He explained that Christians tried to unite by having a common belief, but it didn't work; by having one leader, it didn't work; by worshipping in the same way, it didn't work; by singing exactly the same songs, it didn't work. The reason it works is because the basis of our communion here and our leadership conference is friendship, and friendship is love. God called Abraham several times in the Bible, describing him as the friend of God. Moses was the friend of God, and Jesus didn't call his disciples 'disciples'; He said, 'You are my friends.' You may disagree with each other, but you are friends. This is really precious. Through love, as the Father said, unity comes about through true love. Friendship is one aspect or expression of that kind of love.

You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your brothers or sisters. My sister, for instance, is a Nazi, but she's my sister. We argue and discuss, but we're always very close. Even though politically she's always been a communist and now a Nazi, she's still my sister. A friend, I don't think I'd choose her to be a friend because we would just spend all our time arguing about politics, and there would be nothing deeper connecting us. We're connected at a deeper level because we are siblings, sharing the same blood. My mother was born in Jerusalem, and my mother's younger sister still lives in Israel. I met her once in my life when I was at Manchester University. My mother said, 'Why don't you come and meet your aunt?' I came down, met my aunt for about half an hour, and then went for a walk with her daughter. I hadn't seen her again until I went to the MEPE about 20 years later. I thought, 'Why don't I go and visit my aunt?' I asked my mother for her phone number, and when I contacted her, she could only say one thing: 'Yes.' That's the blood connection; it's eternal in that sense.

The difference between friendship and family is significant. Sometimes friendships break up over political arguments, like Brexit, and even families break up. It's tragic that people think what you believe is more important than anything else, including your political perspective. My sister knows my views on Israel, but I think, 'Who cares? You're my sister, I'm your brother.' When my dad died, she brought one of her family members along, and all she wanted to talk about was politics. I found that boring, so I talked to my nephew and his wife, whom I had seen very rarely. I told them about their grandmother, my mother, and my sister's mother, and about family stories that were important for them to know. To know who you are, you need to understand where you came from and your family history. It's essential to understand why your mother and her mother don't get along, and that's a long story.

Now, regarding the values and mission of the True Mother, the only begotten daughter, after 650 years of patience and waiting, she began to address the truth of the providence by starting with a proclamation of the only begotten daughter. My question is always, why wait? I think there is a sensible answer to why she waited 50 years. She started to talk about what she believed about herself and the way the providence had developed. Why did she wait until Father died before she started talking about any of these things? The highest wisdom for living in the era of Cheong Il Guk is to understand the words and providence from the perspective that True Mother, the only begotten daughter, is a central pillar for completing Heavenly Parent's providence. For me, that's always a question. My own view is that the Divine Principle book should have just been revised with a few sentences and paragraphs added. It states that Adam should have made a foundation of faith and a foundation of substance. Shouldn't Eve have made a foundation of faith? Yes. Shouldn't Eve have made a foundation of substance? Yes. So why isn't it in the book? You don't need to produce a whole new lecture series; you just need to correct the Divine Principle book, which is what I do. I go around correcting people and correcting books, and it annoys people, but I don't care. Things need to be corrected.

When I teach the Bible stories, I don't just talk about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; I talk about Abraham and Sarah, Hagar, Isaac and Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, and Moses' sister Miriam, who is an incredibly important figure. We also have the female judges, Esther and Ruth. Why have we left them out of the Divine Principle lectures or the book? I would say that's a mistake. How many men accept women? Yes, I agree with your opinion of women. I think it's really sad that it has been like that. It shouldn't have been like that; it was very sad because we end up with something different. What would have been better is if they had just corrected and revised the Divine Principle book to include the parts that were left out, particularly the role of women, because they're all there in the Bible. Why did we leave it out?

I was wondering to myself, and I've been doing that more and more as I pray, why did I not question that point myself? It's quite obvious now that True Mother's role is significant. A few weeks or a month after Father passed, I suddenly realised we can see God in the feminine; we can see God in True Mother. I wondered why we didn't ask those questions. I don't just blame those who were given it; I think I was foolish not to think of it myself. I think the answer is that for some reason, Father and Mother were able to talk about these things and agree on them, but they weren't really united about many things. That was the conclusion I came to soon after Father died. A new modified family pledge came out, along with a new version of Cheong Il Guk. All these things happened in a very short time, which I think is because she didn't agree with many of the things Father was doing. For whatever reason, they weren't able to talk about it and come to a common understanding. Because they didn't have a common understanding, that's why it wasn't until Father died that True Mother started talking about these things. To me, it reflects upon the relationship Father and Mother had with each other, and I can only say it's very sad. I look at Philip and Elizabeth; they had a completely common understanding about everything and always talked openly with each other about everything, and they were incredibly united. I just feel it's a shame.

Do you want to take a break before one more slide? I think there is something that makes the most sense: the exposition of the principle version of the nature, reality, and providence of restoration. One has to think about these things. That drives my kids nuts, so I hardly ever say anything to them anymore. All I do is think about these things to try and understand why things are the way they are. I've always been like that; that's why I study. Why are things the way they are? Has something gone wrong at some point?