Tracing God's Providence: After the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Day 1

Good evening everyone. It's great to see you all again. About 150 plus people signed up for the workshop. I don't think everybody's going to be here in the evenings, but it means that if you sign up, then you'll get sent the link to the lectures when they get posted online. So, it's great to see you. Without further ado, I guess I should start. Tracing God's providence after the fall of the Berlin Wall, so there we are. I think quite a lot of you know me, but for those of you who haven't been before, just a little bit about myself. That's my wife and I; we're blessed in 1982 at Madison Square Garden. Now we have four children. These are old photographs of my oldest son and daughter-in-law, Christopher, and they have two children: one of them is Charlotte and another one I haven't got a photograph of called Conrad. That's the second son, Jonathan, his wife, Arena, and the third son, Alexander, and daughter, Elizabeth. At the moment, some of us live together: Robert and his family, and Elizabeth, Ruth, and myself, who live together in the same property, a 400-year-old house.

Sometimes people ask me, as I said, you know, when I'm teaching, often I'm just making it up as I go along, in a manner of speaking. I'm not quite sure what I'm going to say, and often I just listen to myself teaching. I don't expect you to agree with everything I say. In fact, if you do agree with everything I say, I'll be quite disappointed because a lot of what I say is just to encourage you to think. Sometimes people say to me, 'Well, what's God's point of view?' Surely, as a lecturer, you should be presenting God's point. Sonia said, 'Well, hopefully God will speak through me.' But when I think about what God's point of view is, it often reminds me, as Rajiv was mentioning, I gave this sermon yesterday, and part of that was told this little story of, I think it's often called a Buddhist story, but quite a few different cultures have it, of the blind men and the elephant.

There was a ruler who, for whatever reason, decided to do a little experiment. He got an elephant and he got some blind men and asked these blind men to tell him what it was that they could feel and touch because they couldn't see anything, obviously. One of the blind men bumped into the trunk and said, 'This is a hosepipe because water squirts out of it.' Another one bumped into a leg and said, 'This is like a tree because it's so thick, like a tree trunk.' Another one bumped into the ear, and as the ear flapped, he said, 'This is like a fan to keep me cool.' Another one bumped into the tail and said, 'This must be a rope.' Another one felt and bumped into the elephant's tummy and said, 'This elephant is like a wall.' For each of them, they argued about what the elephant was. It was a hosepipe, a fan, a wall, a tree, a rope. The ruler, of course, laughed.

The thing is, this is the nature of reality. Whenever we encounter reality, we only encounter it from our own point of view. So how can we experience reality from God's point of view? How can we understand and know God's point of view? We all have our own individual perspective, our own individual point of view, our own individual perception, our own individual experience of life, and way of looking at things. That is inevitable; it can never be anything other than that. At the same time, each of us is an individual expression of the Divine. In one sense, we can say each person is able to see things from their point of view, but also from God's point of view. The reality is that all perspectives are relative. Each of these people thought that their perspective was the correct one, that what they encountered and described and defined was right. In one sense, they were all right, but in another sense, they were all wrong.

So how can we know what God's point of view in that sense is? If all those blind men, instead of arguing with each other and saying, 'My point of view is right, what I found is right, I'm absolutely convinced that this is a tail or a tree trunk,' if instead of that they'd listened to each other and thought, 'Well, that's really interesting, your experience of this elephant is like this, and your experience of the elephant is like that,' and if they listened to each other and tried to put together all the different experiences and perceptions, then they may have come to an understanding of what an elephant really was like. It's like a jigsaw puzzle; each of them has a piece of the jigsaw, but none of them has all the pieces. What they need to do is to put together all the different pieces of the jigsaw, and then they can see the whole picture. That's how I understand God's point of view. God sees things from the perspectives of the whole. God sees everything; God is omniscient, God is omnipotent; God knows everything. So God can see everything from everybody's point of view.

If we want to understand what God's point of view in that sense is, then we need to listen to everybody else's point of view and then try to put together all the different pieces. Then we can get a more holistic perspective because, as I said, all perspectives are relative. There's a very important spiritual principle here. The second commandment says, 'You shall not make any image.' Don't make any images of what is in heaven or on earth. Why does it say that? It's because all images are relative. Any picture we make of God, or any statue we make of God, or anything you write about God, or any way in which you try to define God using language, is always going to be a relative perspective. Because of the nature of reality, God is invisible; God is beyond time and space; God is inherently fundamentally mysterious. We can never really get our head around God; God is beyond language. That's why God said, 'Don't make any images,' because all images are relative.

The problem is that when people make an image, it means absolutising that which is relative and claiming my perspective is the absolute perspective when it's actually just a relative perspective. It's only a partial description of the whole, and that's what idolatry is. When people raise up their own view of everything and claim their concept of God, their belief about God, their picture of God, their words they use to describe God, is the absolute one. That's why people get into so many conflicts, because they only see things from their own point of view. We can see this going on a lot. People can fight and argue, and you can see this also within a family. If you have children, children fight; they get into arguments over toys and all kinds of other things. As a parent, one doesn't take sides; one tries to listen to each of the children and say, 'Well, what happened? Tell me your side of the story,' and then, 'Tell me your side of the story,' and then listen to each other's side of the story. Often, people misunderstand the other; they have certain assumptions about the reason why other people did what they did, and this leads to a lot of misunderstanding and then a lot of conflict.

This is the meaning of the story of the blind men and the elephant. In order to understand the whole picture, what's really going on, we need to listen to all these different points of view and not assume that our point of view is the absolute or the right one. Of course, this is the nature of reality. Reality can never be encompassed in any particular concept or any particular narrative. Just like God, reality is always bigger than anything we can possibly conceptualise and imagine. It's always good to remember that. So let's turn a little bit then to study a few passages in the Principle about God's providence. I'm not going to go all the way back to Adam and Eve, but I'm going to go back a little bit. These are some passages from 'Consummation of Human History,' which people don't often study or teach anymore. The providence of reclaimed people began from lone individuals called by God. As Sonia said, I've been teaching a lot, and the first individual that was called by God to reclaim human beings, of course, was Abel. That didn't work out well; he got killed. Then God called Noah, but again, problems in Noah's family meant that that providence didn't work out. Eventually, God found Abraham, and from Abraham, there was a single individual from which God's providence expanded from the individual to the family to society to the nation, and today, as it says, has reached a worldwide level.

That's why Abraham and Sarah are called the parents of faith. Sometimes they say Abraham is the father of faith, but Jews call Abraham and Sarah the parents of faith. For some reason, a lot of spiritual traditions forget the women; Jews don't forget that. That's why all the patriarchs have matriarchs; they all have wives, they all have mothers. God said to Sarah, 'You're going to be the mother of many nations.' God's foundation progressively expands all this way: individual, couples, families, society, nations, and today has reached a worldwide level, which is what we're going to be looking at in more detail. The providence of separation from Satan began with a clan society and continued through the stages of political and social development: feudalism, monarchy, and today, democracy. We looked at that in previous lectures.

Coming back up much more to the present, our world is divided into two. Now, you have to remember the Divine Principle was formulated and written in the 1950s. I'm not sure if it was updated after that; I mean, new editions came out, I don't know. Anyway, the democratic world seeks to create societies on God's side, and the communist world has been established in regimes on Satan's side. That's basically where we left off during the last workshop. Then people started asking me questions, and we had another two-hour discussion after that. A year ago, I said, 'Well, okay, I'll teach you another workshop on what's been going on since the collapse of communism.' I'm afraid it's a year later. Sometimes people are very pacifist and think, 'Well, there shouldn't be war.' But the reality is, according to the Principle, war is inevitable. If there were no wars or divisions in the fallen world, then the sovereignty of evil would continue forever, and the world would never be restored.

When you have a sovereignty of evil, that doesn't just mean Satan from the spiritual world; it means tyranny, it means dictatorship, it means totalitarianism. If nobody resists that, then it will continue forever. Sometimes, in resisting evil, resisting tyranny, resisting dictatorship, or trying to change totalitarian societies, this can lead to conflict. Why is that? Because people who have power don't like to let go of the power that they have. They don't want to give up power, whether it's an individual dictator or king, or whether it's a political party or an oligarchy. They don't want to give up the power to control other people's lives; they don't want to give up the power to control society; they don't want to give up the power which enables them to become phenomenally rich and wealthy. Sometimes, the only way in which this power can be wrested from them is through conflict, and sometimes these conflicts lead to wars.

Therefore, God has worked His providence to restore the heavenly sovereignty by degrees, not overnight, not in one go. It's taken many, many years. He sends prophets and saints to the fallen world to found religions and raise the level of morality, hoping that through this religious transformation, change can also come about—a peaceful social, political, and economic change as well. Sometimes it doesn't always work out like that, and religious people themselves get into wars and fights with each other. He establishes governments with higher standards of goodness which come to oppose and destroy regimes with lower standards of goodness to fulfil the providence of restoration. Therefore, conflicts and wars are unavoidable. It says God establishes governments for the highest standard of goodness. In reality, it's not God that does that; in reality, it's people that do that. But the people that do that are the people who respond to God's calling them through their conscience. It says in another verse or another line in the Principle, 'Without the conscience, God's providence of restoration could never go forward.'

So God's providence of restoration goes forward to the extent that people listen to and follow their conscience, and sometimes this leads to them having to risk their life. Without that, God's providence doesn't go forward. Without that government to the highest standard of goodness, it is never established. There are people who are willing to take a stand against evil and tyranny because their conscience says, 'I cannot put up with this; I cannot tolerate this evil; I have to say something.' I don't know how many of you know about this group called the White Rose during the Nazi time in Germany.

An extraordinary group of students felt they could not live with themselves unless they protested against Nazism by distributing leaflets. They were young students, and their conviction led them to take a stand, resulting in their arrest and execution. This raises the question of where they went in the spiritual world. The highest standards come to oppose and destroy regimes with lower standards of goodness to fulfil the providence of restoration. Wars are inevitable, which is a sad reality, but wars conducted by good sovereignty to destroy evil sovereignty are considered good as they further the fulfilment of the providence of restoration. It is crucial to understand that these wars are not about destroying people but about changing the form of governance so that those living under an evil sovereignty can instead live under a good one.

The final war between democracy and communism primarily takes the form of an ideological conflict. We witnessed this during what we call the Cold War, where the democratic world, particularly policymakers in America and Britain, decided to engage in ideological conflict rather than direct military confrontation with the Soviet Union. They utilised various platforms, such as the BBC and the Voice of America, to promote their ideology and challenge communism. This ideological conflict aimed to bring about regime change and the end of evil sovereignty through education and awareness. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have indeed seen more conflicts, indicating that the ideological battle is far from over.

Although fallen history began under the sovereignty of Satan, God's providence has progressively transformed the hearts of people, nurturing their original nature. This transformation does not happen overnight; it is a gradual process that often takes decades or even centuries. Inspired groups emerge in societies plagued by tyranny and injustice, believing that the current state of affairs is not how things ought to be. The first person to recognise this was Abraham, who understood that good could exist without evil and that evil is not necessary or inevitable. This process of separation culminates in establishing two opposing powers on a global level: democracy and communism. These two sovereignties cannot peacefully coexist, and as human history nears its consummation, they will inevitably collide in the realm of ideology.

The inner conflict between democracy and communism may lead to external military confrontations, as seen in various proxy wars across Africa, Latin America, and Europe. Ultimately, however, Satan's sovereignty will perish forever, and Heaven's sovereignty will be re-established as the one eternal sovereignty of God. Today, we find ourselves at a critical intersection where these two worlds confront each other in the final battle. The peaceful conclusion of the Cold War, marked by the breakup of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Eastern European nations, has not resolved the conflict in the Far East. North Korea, often labelled as communist, resembles a Nazi regime more closely, while China, despite being run by the Communist Party, has adopted free-market principles, abandoning traditional Marxism-Leninism.

Reflecting on the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989, we remember the hope it brought for a peaceful democratic world. However, the reality today raises questions about how we arrived at this point. To understand the current state of affairs, we must look back, not just to the time of Adam and Eve, but over the last thousand years of European history. Winston Churchill once said that the longer you can look back, the further you can look forward. This perspective allows us to identify historical trends and anticipate future developments. George Orwell also noted that the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their understanding of their own history, a tactic often employed by tyrants and totalitarian regimes.

Our spiritual community's narrative began with Abraham, and understanding this history is essential for preserving our identity as individuals, families, communities, and nations. To grasp the significance of the last thousand years of European history, we must examine the map of Europe from that time. France and England emerged as some of the oldest unitary states, while much of Spain was under Muslim control due to a vast Muslim empire. The Holy Roman Empire encompassed various ethnic groups, and the Byzantine Empire continued the legacy of the Roman Empire in the east. The adoption of Orthodox Christianity by the Slavic people marked a significant development in this historical context, as they diverged from Catholic Christianity. Understanding these historical dynamics is crucial for comprehending the present and future of our societies.

Novgorod was swept in by the Mongols, who settled in the area. At that time, Lithuania expanded significantly, becoming a large territory. Nowadays, people often refer to modern-day Ukraine, which encompasses this area. Hungary and Poland also expanded, taking on unusual shapes, and they occupied various kingdoms. The Holy Roman Empire began fragmenting due to conflicts between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Catholic Church, leading to significant political instability. Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire occupied Byzantium and began moving into Europe, while Spain and Castile expelled Muslims and Jews, further altering the demographic landscape.

The Holy Roman Empire's fragmentation resulted in Poland and Lithuania forming a powerful Commonwealth, occupying a vast area. The Ottoman Empire expanded into Europe, occupying Greece, what is now Bulgaria, and parts of Romania, even reaching Vienna at one point. This expansion included the Crimean Khanate and the Golden Horde. Russia began to fragment under Mongolian influence, with various khanates emerging. The legacy of the Mongolian conquest is evident in the Muslim republics within Russia today. Russia's expansion did not originate from Kiev but rather from Moscow, particularly after the destruction of Kiev, when Vladimir became a focal point.

Ivan Moneybags, as he was nicknamed, managed to bribe the Mongolians, allowing Moscow to become the capital. Moscow's expansion was marked by a problematic regime focused on power and force. By the 16th century, following the Reformation, the Holy Roman Empire had fragmented further, leading to numerous wars. Russia began to push back against the Mongols, gradually reclaiming territory and moving eastward through Siberia until it reached the Pacific. The quest for a warm seaport became a significant concern for Russia, which, despite being the largest country in the world, lacked access to one.

Peter the Great's push to establish St. Petersburg in the Baltic was a response to this need, but the port was often frozen in winter. Consequently, Russia sought to move south to gain access to the Black Sea, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire. At this time, Poland remained a substantial country, while Hungary was part of the Ottoman Empire. Spain had driven out all Muslims and Jews, resulting in significant ethnic cleansing. The fragmentation of Italian states continued, and by the 18th century, just before the French Revolution, the Russian Empire had expanded further south under Catherine the Great, who conquered Crimea and parts of modern-day Ukraine.

Establishing a warm seaport in Sevastopol was crucial for Russia to control access to the Mediterranean and facilitate trade. Without access to the sea, trade was challenging, as river mouths were controlled by foreign powers. The French Revolution and Napoleon's invasion of Europe, which reached Moscow, marked a significant turning point. The Russian armies eventually drove Napoleon back to Paris, leading to a realisation among Germanic peoples that they needed to unify to prevent future humiliation. This period also saw the beginning of the Ottoman Empire's stagnation, with various wars occurring.

After the Napoleonic Wars, Europe was divided, and the map changed significantly following the First World War. The Treaty of Versailles resulted in the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, leading to the creation of new nations such as Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. The map of Europe in 1918 looked quite different from today, with Poland reduced in size and new countries emerging. The aftermath of the Second World War further reshaped Europe, and by 2001, the map reflected these changes, including the breakup of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Ukraine as an independent state in 1992.

The Russian Empire continued to expand westward, leading to the assertion that Polish people did not exist as a nation. This complicated history saw Poland disappear for a time before re-emerging. Today, Poland is smaller than it once was, having lost territory after wars. Kaliningrad, formerly Königsberg, is now part of Russia, while the Baltic states emerged following the Soviet Union's collapse. The current map of Europe reflects significant changes over the past thousand years, illustrating the complex interplay of empires and nations.

Before the First World War, the world was dominated by empires, including the vast Russian Empire, which was the largest continuous land empire. Other empires included the Chinese, French, British, Ottoman, and Spanish empires. The Portuguese and Spanish empires were among the first large European empires, disintegrating long before the First World War. The Portuguese were the first to engage in the transatlantic slave trade, transporting more slaves than any other nation. Many countries that were part of the Portuguese Empire gained independence around 1975, following the end of Portugal's dictatorship, although they faced troubled histories thereafter.

The Dutch Empire primarily encompassed Indonesia, which was occupied by Japan during the Second World War. After the war, the Dutch attempted to reclaim their empire, leading to a bloody struggle for Indonesian independence. The Belgian Empire, particularly in the Congo, is infamous for its brutal treatment of the local population, with the legacy of King Leopold II's personal rule leaving lasting issues. The German Empire sought to establish a presence in Africa and the Pacific, while the French Empire was extensive in West Africa and Indochina, with varying legacies across different regions. The British Empire, the largest in terms of geography and population, also faced challenges, particularly with the American colonies, which fought for independence in the 18th century.

Gradually, when the Canadians wanted a bit more independence, they were given their own parliament, similar to Australia and New Zealand. This is why many of these countries remain connected to Britain through what we call the Commonwealth, with 15 or 16 still accepting the Queen as head of state. It was a huge empire, and if we look at the legacy, most of these countries are liberal democracies. India is the largest democracy in the world, and many of these other countries are also democracies. This is the legacy we see, alongside Malaysia and Thailand, as remnants of the world empires.

If we examine the European empires, we find the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914. This was how this part of Europe looked, a vast empire with many countries that were either part of it or had parts of their territories included. It was incredibly complicated, with two centres, Vienna and Budapest, and two crowns. This area was also part of the Ottoman Empire, and as the Ottomans retreated, Austria-Hungary sought to expand southward. This is where everything went wrong, as Serbia, a Slavic country, was not Germanic, and Russia had interests in the region. When the Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary was assassinated in Sarajevo, Austria began to move into this predominantly Slavic area, prompting Russia to mobilise, which ultimately led to the First World War.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was incredibly diverse, comprising various ethnic groups. There were Hungarians, Austrians, Germans, Bohemians, Poles, and many others. Even within these areas, there were smaller ethnic groups. In the past, and in some places today, you can travel through these countries and find towns where the people did not speak Hungarian; they had their own languages and educational systems. Many of these dynamics changed during the 20th century with the rise of nationalism, as people sought to establish their own nation-states. This desire often led to ethnic cleansing, as seen in the former Yugoslavia, highlighting the complexity of ethnic identities within these empires.

When the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dismantled at the end of the First World War, it was divided into constituent parts, but the borders were not exact. Large ethnic groups from other backgrounds lived within these newly formed countries. The Russian Empire in 1914 also expanded from Moscow, known as Muscovy, moving east and north, encountering non-Slavic peoples like the Finns and those in the Baltics. The term 'acquisitions' suggests that these territories were purchased or acquired by treaty, but many were taken by conquest. Catherine the Great's expansion included reclaiming Crimea and moving into areas that were once part of Poland-Lithuania, continuing to seek warm sea ports.

The decline of the Ottoman Empire began in 1774, with its vast territories stretching across North Africa and reaching as far as Austria. By 1914, the Ottoman Empire had shrunk significantly, with many countries achieving independence in the 19th century. The Chinese Empire, on the other hand, gradually expanded eastward, with various territories becoming part of China through conquest or treaties. This historical context illustrates that the world in 1914 was dominated by empires. The question arises: is this how the world is supposed to be? What should the world look like?

History can be viewed as a series of restorations, involving the end of empires. It reflects the ongoing struggles over property, territory, and people, which have evolved alongside human society. These conflicts have expanded from family levels to tribal, societal, national, and now global scales. In the context of the 1950s, Father understood that the conflicting democratic and communist worlds were meant to culminate in a final conflict. In these last days of human history, heavenly laws descended upon the earth in the name of democracy, which is crucial for establishing heavenly law.

In a democratic society, laws are decided by parliament or congress, where people take responsibility for the kind of society they wish to create, expressed through a legal constitution. This process is not something imposed by God; rather, it is a collective effort by people of good conscience, in alignment with God's providence. Democracy is vital for establishing heavenly laws, as it ensures that no single individual dictates the law. Instead of seizing property and land, the rule of law protects individuals from criminal acts and state overreach. This shift began in England with the Magna Carta, which declared that no one could be imprisoned without due process.

At the conclusion of World War I, the defeated nations relinquished their colonies, including Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. In contrast, at the end of World War II, the victors voluntarily liberated their colonies, although this was not always a straightforward process. Some nations fought bitter wars for independence, highlighting the stains on European conscience regarding colonialism. In recent years, great powers have invited smaller nations to join the United Nations, granting them equal rights and status. The providence, according to the principles, moves away from empires towards independent nations, fostering a brotherhood of nations rather than a vast superstate.

From a biblical perspective, we can trace how things are meant to be. After the flood, which was a new beginning, God was deeply affected by the violence in the world. The Bible indicates that this violence broke God's heart, leading to the flood as a means of starting anew. The genealogies of Noah's sons illustrate that each son formed distinct clans and nations, each with its own language and territory. This plurality of nations and languages reflects the unique cultures and traditions that express humanity's diverse ways of perceiving reality. Each language offers a different lens through which to view the world, and translation is never perfect due to the nuances inherent in each language.

Language shapes the way people perceive the world. Each language has unique words that are often untranslatable into others. This is true for Korean, English, Japanese, and German. For instance, Germans often create new words to express concepts that may not exist in other languages. This diversity in language allows individuals to view the world through various lenses, leading to creative solutions to problems. Immigrants, who bring different perspectives, often become the most innovative entrepreneurs and inventors, contributing significantly to society. This phenomenon is particularly evident in America, where a multitude of cultures and languages coexist.

From a biblical perspective, God's vision encompasses a world rich in diversity, with various nationalities, languages, and cultures. This diversity fosters mutual respect and learning among people. I recall a holiday in Germany with my children, who surprisingly preferred McDonald's over trying local cuisine. However, as people mature, they often come to appreciate the richness of different cultures, foods, and languages. Engaging in conversations with those who have different experiences can lead to personal growth and enrichment. The biblical understanding of God's vision is one of plurality, where individuals can learn from one another through dialogue.

The concept of a united world, according to the Divine Principle, does not imply uniformity in language, belief, or culture. Instead, it advocates for common laws that all humans should adhere to. This idea is encapsulated in the covenant God made with Noah and his descendants, which includes seven universal laws. The first law prohibits idol worship, as it leads to self-centredness and nationalism. Instead, individuals should worship the invisible God who created the heavens and the earth. The second law is to treat God with respect and honour, while the third law forbids murder, recognising that every person is made in God's image.

The fourth law prohibits adultery and sexual immorality, protecting the sanctity of relationships. The fifth law protects property rights by forbidding theft. The sixth law addresses animal rights, stating that one must not eat flesh torn from a living animal, promoting humane treatment of creatures. Finally, the seventh law establishes the necessity of courts of justice to resolve conflicts and maintain peace. These laws are universal, yet they allow for the particular customs and traditions of different nations, reflecting a biblical vision of unity in diversity.

The story of the Tower of Babel illustrates the breakdown of empires and the importance of language diversity. Initially, humanity shared a common language and purpose, but when they sought to build a tower to reach the heavens, God intervened. He confused their language, leading to their scattering across the earth. This narrative serves as a political philosophy rather than mere religious scripture, focusing on how to create a just and peaceful society. The biblical tradition aims to establish a harmonious world, highlighting the significance of diverse languages and cultures in achieving this goal.

Historically, the Tower of Babel is linked to the rise of empires, such as the Akkadian Empire founded by Sargon. He was a formidable ruler who conquered various territories and imposed a single language and culture upon the peoples he subjugated. This pattern of imperialism, where one culture dominates others, has persisted throughout history. The imposition of a single language often leads to the erasure of local identities and histories, as seen in various empires, including the Roman and Assyrian empires. Such practices reflect a totalitarian approach to governance, where conformity is enforced at the expense of diversity.

The biblical view of imperialism contrasts sharply with this totalitarian approach. It advocates for a world where multiple voices coexist, rather than one dominant narrative. The Lord's intention is not to punish diversity but to promote a society where all individuals can thrive while respecting one another's unique identities. This vision stands in stark opposition to the historical patterns of imperialism, which seek to erase differences in favour of a singular identity. The biblical narrative encourages the celebration of diversity as a strength rather than a weakness.

Of his heart and the haughty look of his eyes, he says, "By the strength of my hand, I've done this; by my wisdom, because I understand them. I remove the boundaries of nations and create an empire. I plundered their treasures, exploited them like a mighty one. I've subdued their kings as one reaches into a nest; so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations, as people gather abandoned eggs. So I gathered all the countries; not one flapped a wing or opened its mouth to chirp." This is a biblical critique of imperialism, not just of the Assyrian Empire but of all empires. They are wrong; it's not the way God wants things to be. When we look at the backstory of Babel, we see it starts off with everybody made to speak one language with one purpose. In other words, it was a totalitarian society that had been established. We can see the elements of totalitarianism; it is not a new thing, as it has been present forever in these fallen, evil sovereignties, the kind of evil sovereignty that God wants to destroy and break to liberate people.

From Jonathan Sanchez, this is the way in which the story of Babel is interpreted from the point of view of political philosophy. Genesis 10, which is after the flood, describes the division of humanity into 70 nations and 70 languages. Genesis 11 tells how one imperial power conquered smaller nations and imposed their language and culture on them, thus directly contravening God's wish that humanity should respect the integrity of each nation and each individual. When, at the end of the Babel story, God confuses the language of the builders, He is not creating a new state of affairs but restoring the old. Interpreted thus, the story of Babel is a critique of the power of the collective when it crushes individuality. The Babel story critiques imperialism.

After the First World War, the defeated nations gave up their colonies. After the Second World War, the victors gave up their colonies, very kindly said to be voluntary, but it was not like that. Many nations then fought for their independence and were admitted into the brotherhood of nations at the United Nations. The principle recognises that this is God's providence: many different nations, each treated equally, each one respected, each one having its own integrity, its own language, its own way of doing things. The principle is merely a new expression of the truth, which is what it claims to be, and the old truth is expressed in stories in the Bible. To really understand and make sense of the principle, one must understand these stories in the Bible, as this wisdom is thousands of years old.

This raises the challenge of how to achieve peace. Is it through creating an empire and making everybody conform to one language, one law, one culture, or is it to respect diversity and have common universal laws that everyone respects, such as the laws of Noah? These can also be expanded within international law to include other laws. The biblical vision of peace is about nations; many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, Mount Zion, where the temple of God is, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us His ways so that we may walk in His paths." These are the laws of Noah, universal laws about morality. The word of God will go out from Jerusalem; He will judge between the nations and settle disputes for many peoples. In response, they will decide to live at peace with each other, beating their swords into plowshares voluntarily and their spears into pruning hooks. Nations will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

This vision is not about the elimination of nations but about peace between nations. It has always been the biblical vision of peace: not uniformity, but mutual respect between nations. We have the very famous bronze statue outside the United Nations, created by and donated by the Soviet Union, based on the idea of beating swords into plowshares. There are many problems with the United Nations that I want to discuss, but that is where I will stop for now. I hope that was interesting.