Renaissance to the Second Advent - Day 1

My name is William Haines, and I want to share with you some insights as we trace God's providence from the Renaissance to the Second Advent. We've been exploring this topic in several workshops, focusing on the last 600 years, starting from the time of the Renaissance. One important thing to recognize as we trace God's providence is that if the function of the conscience were absent in fallen people, God's providence or restoration would be impossible. Sometimes people wonder why God doesn't do more or why He didn't send the Messiah earlier, but the reality is that it is not God's fault that the fall took place; it was human beings who must put things right. Therefore, God's providence only advances to the extent that people listen to and follow their conscience, sometimes at great personal risk.

In our previous discussions, we traced God's providence from the time of the Ascension through the Germanic tribes and into Western Europe, including England. We also examined the Slavonic tribes and Russia, and we will continue to explore these themes. Additionally, we looked at God's providence through Islam, trying to understand why it developed more in some countries than in others, and why it was possible for the Second Advent to come. To understand this, we need to analyze what the foundation to receive the Messiah looks like. First, it needs to be a foundation of faith, which means there must be a spiritual community that lives a life of prayer, study of God's word, and worship.

A spiritual community is one that is God-centered, living a life of prayer, strengthening their original mind and conscience, studying God's word to form their conscience, and worshipping God to find meaning and purpose in their relationship with Him. The second aspect is making a foundation of substance, which means that this spiritual community must also have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. This allows for a questioning faith, where individuals can ask questions about their beliefs. I was struck by the recent passing of Prince Philip, who was known for his questioning faith. He was a firm Christian and a member of the Anglican Church, but he also asked questions and sought to understand things more deeply.

One anecdote that stood out was when Prince Philip spoke with the Archbishop of York about his family issues. The Archbishop reminded him that every marriage should include three people: the husband, the wife, and Jesus Christ. This highlights the importance of a God-centered marriage, which both he and the Queen exemplified by regularly attending church. It made me wonder about his upbringing and how he developed such a questioning faith. He came from a very dysfunctional family, with a mother who was institutionalized and a father who abandoned them. His education included time in Germany, where he attended a school run by a Jewish headmaster who encouraged questioning and character development.

This emphasis on questioning and character formation likely influenced Prince Philip's approach to faith and education. He later established the Duke of Edinburgh Award to provide young people with opportunities to develop their character through various programs. This reflects the importance of freedom of thought and speech, allowing individuals to ask difficult questions about their faith without fear of persecution. When the Messiah arrives, He may not conform to established creeds, and it is essential to have a foundation that allows for such diversity of thought. The foundation must include a spiritual community that can respond to the Messiah and protect Him, which is why the rule of law is crucial.

Looking at the foundation of faith during Jesus' time, we see that there was a spiritual community among the Jewish people who led a religious life, worshipping God through the temple and synagogues. This community had a sacrificial system and a network of synagogues for education and worship. There was also religious pluralism, with various groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees engaging in debate and discussion. However, due to the political realities of Roman occupation, Jesus was executed, and God's providence had to start anew. Over the past 2,000 years, God has been preparing a democratic social and legal environment to protect Christ at the Second Advent. For Christ to come, there must be a society that upholds the rule of law, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, which typically arises in democratic societies where individuals can disagree with authority without fear of punishment.

It is important to note that it is not God's responsibility to create this legal and democratic environment; it is the responsibility of human beings. As we trace God's providence, we see how different people have responded to their original mind and conscience, sometimes creating environments conducive to the return of Christ, while at other times regressing into totalitarian systems that hinder His return. We will continue to explore these themes further.

Things I just want to go through, so there's a little bit of a recap. It all starts off with Abraham. Now, Abraham was the person who discovered God, had an encounter with God, and made a covenant with God. All the good things that we enjoy come from Abraham. We look at his family, which we've done before. He had a wife called Sarah, and from Sarah, he had a son called Isaac. For various complicated reasons, he also had a relationship with Hagar, which Sarah approved of and encouraged to have a child called Ishmael. However, after Isaac was born, 13 years later, the relationship didn't work out so well. Sarah told Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away, but Abraham wasn't happy with this. God said to Abraham, 'I will bless Ishmael, make him fruitful; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation, but I will establish my covenant with Isaac.' After the death of Ishmael, Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba, which is in the centre of Mecca in Arabia today, the first house for the worship of God. It says in the Quran that Abraham raised the foundations of the shrine together with Ishmael, and they prayed, 'Our Lord, accept this from us; You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.'

When we look at and trace Abraham's lineage, we see that through Ishmael, we have the Arab people. Ishmael had twelve sons, leading to different Arab tribes and the Arab nation. Muhammad, of course, was born in Mecca, and from there, we have the religion of Islam. From Abraham's second son, Isaac, we have the Jewish people and various other peoples as well, leading to Judaism today. Jesus, of course, was a Jew, and the followers of Jesus established Christianity. That much I explained before. After the death of Sarah, Abraham had more sons. The Bible states that Abraham took another wife whose name was Keturah, and she bore him Zimran, Dakshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shua. Abraham willed all that he owned to Isaac, but to Abraham's sons by concubines, he gave gifts while he was still living and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward to the land of the east.

It's curious to know, then, who Keturah was. One tradition suggests that she was actually Hagar. This tradition states that after Sarah died, Isaac went to a place where Hagar and Ishmael lived and brought Hagar back to Abraham. Thus, Abraham married Hagar and had more children through her. Isaac himself was also married to Rebecca, indicating a reconciliation between Isaac and Ishmael and between Abraham and Hagar. The name Keturah means 'perfume,' and the tradition holds that after leaving Abraham, she kept her sexual priorities and did not remarry or have a relationship with anyone else. When Isaac brought her back to Abraham, he gave her the new name Keturah. Another interpretation is that Abraham had three wives: one wife and two concubines. Sarah is supposed to be descended from Shem, Noah's son; Keturah is said to be descended from Japheth, another son of Noah; and Hagar is believed to be descended from Ham, the third son of Noah.

All these people obviously grew up with Abraham. He did not send them away until they were adults, so he would have educated them and taught them about God, just as he taught Isaac and Ishmael about the invisible God who created the heavens and the earth, along with all the stories about Adam and Eve and the creation of the world. What happened to his sons? They went east. There are different ideas, but nothing is documented. Some people speculate that they went east to India and may have been the Aryans, the founders of the Sanskrit religions. In Sanskrit, the Vedas echo many stories found in Genesis, which is quite interesting. Nobody knows for sure, but there is speculation along these lines.

Picking up another thread, God's providence developed within Judaism. We looked at this from Joshua to Jesus, particularly during the time of Solomon. Solomon was an incredibly famous king, and his fame spread throughout the world. When the Queen of Sheba heard of the famous Solomon concerning the name of the Lord, she came to prove him with hard questions, as he was known to be very wise. By tradition, this is the Kingdom of Sheba, located in this part of Arabia. There are traditions suggesting that the Kingdom of Sheba had some kind of overlordship over the Horn of Africa, including Cush and Ethiopia, also known as Abyssinia. She travelled to Israel, to Jerusalem, with a great entourage, bringing many camels laden with gold and precious stones. When she came to Solomon, she communed with him about all that was in her heart, pouring out her questions, and he was able to answer them all.

The King Solomon gave to the Queen of Sheba all that she desired, in addition to what he gave her from his royal bounty. She returned to her own country with her servants. There are extra stories about this encounter; she asked him many questions, and he also posed riddles to her. Tradition holds that if she could not answer a riddle, she should sleep with him. Essentially, Solomon tricked the Queen of Sheba into sleeping with him, and she became pregnant and had a son. After returning to Sheba, there is also a tradition that she converted to Judaism, as Solomon would not have been allowed to marry her or have a relationship with her unless she converted. This conversion is said to have occurred through their conversations. All of this is contained in Ethiopian scriptures; the Ethiopian Church has the same Bible as regular Christians, but there are differences between the Protestant and Catholic Bibles, as well as between the Ethiopian and other Catholic Protestant Bibles. They have at least one book of their own, which discusses God's providence in Ethiopia, called Kebra Nagast.

According to this Ethiopian scripture, Solomon and Sheba had a son called Menelik. When Menelik grew up, Solomon invited him to come to Jerusalem. Menelik went to see his father and had been raised as a Jew. Solomon asked him to become his heir and the next king of Israel when he died, but Menelik refused and returned to Sheba. According to one tradition, Solomon gave Menelik the Ark of the Covenant and sent some Jewish people with him to help convert the people living in that part of the world to Judaism. This tradition states that Menelik established the Solomonic dynasty, and all the kings of Ethiopia up until Haile Selassie were said to be descended from King Solomon. Haile Selassie was the last emperor of Ethiopia, murdered in 1974 during a communist revolution, which wiped out the entire Ethiopian royal family. His title was 'The Last Emperor of Ethiopia,' and he was known as 'The Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and the likes of God.' This is the self-understanding of the Ethiopian royal lineage.

The Rastafarians from Jamaica have picked up on this narrative, believing that Ethiopians are the chosen people of God. This idea reflects God's providence developing in Africa. Another tradition suggests that the tribe of Dan migrated during the time of Rehoboam, who became king after Solomon, when the kingdom split. The tribe of Dan did not like living under Rehoboam, so they migrated to Ethiopia or Sheba to join Menelik. Another tradition states that during the reign of King Manasseh, who was a pagan trying to lead the Jews into paganism, some people smuggled the Ark out of Jerusalem to protect it. They first took it to Egypt and then down to Ethiopia, where it is said to have come to rest in a city called Axum. The Ark is supposed to be there to this day, according to this tradition. Thus, there is a long-standing tradition of ancient Jewish people living in Ethiopia. This was not widely known until the 1970s when the Falasha Jews were discovered. Many flights were arranged from Israel to bring these Jews, who had been marginalized and persecuted in Ethiopia, to live in Israel as practicing Jews for thousands of years.

In the Book of Acts, we find that Philip, one of the disciples of Jesus, was whisked away from Damascus to encounter an Ethiopian official who was reading the prophet Isaiah. Philip approached the Ethiopian official, a eunuch, and asked him if he understood what he was reading. The Ethiopian replied that he did not and asked Philip to explain it to him. This Ethiopian official was not a Christian; he was an Ethiopian Jew who had come to Jerusalem for Passover or some festival. There was a significant Jewish community in Ethiopia. Philip began with the passage of scripture the Ethiopian was reading and told him the good news about Jesus, explaining that all the prophecies in Isaiah referred to Jesus. The Ethiopian was touched by this and expressed his belief in Jesus, asking Philip to baptise him. They happened to be passing a river or pond, and so they got out, and Philip baptised the eunuch there. The Ethiopian then returned to Ethiopia, marking the beginnings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Christianity became the official religion in Ethiopia around 330 AD, and it expanded significantly. The Ethiopian kings were Christians.

When Muhammad and the early Muslims faced persecution in Mecca, he sent many of them to Ethiopia for refuge, knowing there was a Christian king who believed in God and would provide safety. They tried to convert the king of Ethiopia to Islam, but he was not convinced. However, he allowed them to stay and offered them sanctuary. After that, they went to Medina. Ethiopia then became the only Christian African country to resist Islam. All other African countries, including Egypt and all of North Africa, which were formerly Christian nations, converted to Islam. My question is, what happened afterward? I do not know much about what transpired, but I have always wondered if the Jews and Christians in Ethiopia sent missionaries to the rest of Africa. It is well known that the rest of Africa did not receive Christian missionaries until the 19th century, primarily from Europe. I have always wondered why missionaries did not go from Ethiopia; perhaps they did, but I am unsure of the historical record on that. This is another way to trace God's providence and how it developed, but it seems not to have progressed as it could have, which may be part of the reason why communism was able to take over in Ethiopia, a total disaster.

Picking this up again where we left off last time, God's providence is to restore the original nature of a human being. We know that a human being has an inner and outer aspect: the inner dimension, which is our mind, heart, and soul, and the external expression of that, which is our physical body. This is an oversimplification, but there are historians who trace two different cultural streams through European history. One is labelled Hebrews, and the other is labelled Hellenism. These are two different movements aimed at restoring the original human nature. There is a lot of overlap, and both are good and necessary; it is not that one is good and the other is bad. The main point is that both need to be integrated, with Hebrewism in the subject position. I will explain more about that in a moment. This is why it says in the Divine Principle that only by Cain-type Hellenism can we understand this better.

It means it's bad submitting to able-type Hebrewism. Could Satan be separated from the prevailing spirit of the age? Then the foundation substance necessary for receiving the crisis of the Second Advent could be established worldwide. So we're looking to see how the foundation to receive the law of the Second Advent is going to be established. It has to be established by a foundation of substance, which means Hellenism. The unity of Hellenism and Hebrewism needs to be integrated, with able-type Hebrewism in the subject position and Hellenism in the object position. They need to be integrated.

To remind you, these two different streams are embodied here in Hebrewism, which obviously comes from Israel, a spiritual culture. Being a spiritual culture is able relative to Greece, where hedonism comes from the Hellenic islands. Hellenic culture is much more like a material culture. In that sense, it was relatively speaking in the position of Cain, and as we know, Cain and Abel need to unite; they need to be synthesised. Israel is much more a listening culture. In Deuteronomy, we hear, 'O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.' You have to listen to the word of God, so the whole focus of the biblical tradition is the word of God and listening to it. To listen to the word of God, you must engage with God's word in your original mind through your conscience, which means developing your spiritual life—the inner life, the life of the mind, the life of the heart, and the life of the soul.

Greek culture, on the other hand, is much more focused upon seeing. It's all about art, image, and what's out there. This is why I have certain expressions, such as 'a picture never lies.' Is that true or not? The biblical view is that the word of God never lies. Truth is found not in pictures, which can sometimes give a distorted impression depending on the angle you take. The Greek view is very much about beauty; the incredible beauty of architecture, sculpture, and art was their high point in terms of anthropology. The biblical tradition says human beings have free will, going all the way back to Genesis. God said, 'You can eat from any of the trees, but don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If you do, you're going to die.' Your choice; you decide whether you eat that fruit or not. This means that from page one in the Bible, human beings have free will.

The Greek view, as we have looked at before, is very much about the idea of fate—being dominated and controlled by the gods or fate. 'Oh, don't blame me; I'm not responsible; the gods made me do it.' This idea comes up repeatedly in Greek plays, in Homer, and in Hesiod. Israel, then, is very much theist and God-centered, while Greece is very much human-centered. The Greek understanding is that a human being is fundamentally a son or daughter of God, a child of God. The Greek view, quoting Aristotle, is that man is a social animal. For the biblical tradition, morality and law have a divine origin, while for the Greek view, laws are made by human beings. You decide what the laws of the state are going to be in parliament or in the senate; you vote and decide.

The Jewish people conceptualise themselves as a worshipping community, founded at Mount Sinai through a covenant made together as a people with God. This is the core of their identity: they are a people who worship God. They haven't made a covenant; God has chosen them, and they have a covenant with God. This is the cause of their identity as a worshipping community. It is not connected to a particular piece of land. Even when they have been exiled repeatedly, they still maintain their identity because it is rooted in their relationship with God. As long as there are at least a dozen of them around, they can form a community. Greece, however, is a political community; your identity depends upon which city or state you are living in, which city you come from, and that is the core of your identity and the source of your allegiance and loyalty.

In Israel, people were dressed very modestly, and this tradition has been inherited in the Muslim world. In Greece, they would exercise nude in the Olympic Games, which is still somewhat the case today. If you read the Hebrew Bible, it is very conservative regarding sexuality, with many laws about sexual purity. The Greek tradition, however, has very few laws; pedophilia was regarded as a normal part of sexual life. These are two complementary things; you need both. You can have a Cain-type Hebrewism, which resembles religious fundamentalism, that rejects all the right-hand side. This can lead to religious fundamentalism, extremism, and totalitarianism, which is not right either. There is no foundation to see the Messiah there. At the same time, if you just emphasise this strand without the other, you end up with a very secular, materialistic culture.

The point is that all this side is good, but it needs to be in the subject position. Art, material culture, and all forms of expression need to be infused with spiritual values. When you have music, art, painting, and architecture, all these things should be an expression of spiritual culture. The word 'culture' comes from the word 'cult,' which is a place where the worship of God takes place. People worship God in different ways: through singing, dancing, art, music, and food. These are the ways in which people worship God. Culture, then, is the expression of the highest values of a particular society. If it is a religious culture, the highest values will obviously be religious values. If, on the other hand, it is an atheistic, secular, materialistic society, the values expressed through art, music, literature, and architecture will be very different. The highest values in a secular, atheistic, materialistic society differ significantly from those in a spiritual society.

So, what is our culture? What are the most important values within our society that you can find expressed in music, art, literature, and media? That is the culture; it is an expression of the values expressed. When it says in the Divine Principle that they should be united, the Hebraic tradition should be in the subject position. This means that all these things should be an expression of spiritual values. There is nothing wrong with human beings meeting in parliament, the senate, or congress and having debates about what kind of laws they need within their society. However, these discussions and decisions should all be based upon spiritual values, divine law. There should be a unity of science and religion; it is not that science is wrong. Science is great; without it, there is no technology or good environment for people to live in. But there should be a sense of unity between science and religion, so all science and technology should be used to advance spiritual purposes and aims.

I am going to stop there and take a little break. I will open up some discussion groups. I hope you found it interesting, and then we will carry on into the Renaissance proper in a moment. To give some context of what we are doing here, at the end of the last workshop, we looked at how this synthesis within Western Europe, particularly Catholic Europe, was achieved with Thomas Aquinas. He combined Aristotle, the Hellenic tradition, with Christian thought and wrote many books of philosophy and theology. This became the basis and foundation of the medieval synthesis and the incredible flourishing of medieval culture within Europe at that time. He was a profound Christian; towards the end of his life, he had a vision, a personal encounter with Jesus, and then he stopped writing. He said everything he had written was like straw compared to this encounter with Christ. Scholars were annoyed because he did not finish writing his books after this personal encounter, deciding that there was no point in writing any more books as they were valueless compared to this personal relationship, which is at the base of Western Christianity.

There were many reform movements within Western Christianity, starting off in Cluny, one of the oldest monastic foundations. Many reform movements began here, including the Carthusians, Cistercians, Augustinians, Carmelites, Franciscans, and Dominicans. You can see the openness of the Western Church to reform and new initiatives, as long as they acknowledged the authority of the Pope and the papacy and stayed within the correct doctrine. There was a huge variety of different ways for Christians to engage within society through these different kinds of monastic orders for men and women. Some were contemplative, focusing on prayer, while others were very much involved with community activities, service, welfare provision, and education. Every aspect of medieval life was influenced by the Church, and these are some of the leading figures, men and women, which I looked at after the last workshop we did. This was European Christianity and the synthesis of the Hebraic and Hellenistic traditions, forming a foundation to receive the Messiah within Western Christianity.

If we look a little more deeply, we traced church-state relations and the investiture controversy during the last workshop. This was the huge conflict between the papacy and the Holy Roman Emperor and various other kings about who had the authority to appoint bishops. This was not just a religious decision; it was also a political one. The principle states that after crowning and blessing the emperor, the Pope, who was Pope Leo III, was to obey him as one of his subjects in temporal matters. The emperor was to lift up and further the spiritual work of the papacy in his realm. The Pope was supposed to obey the king or emperor, and bishops within their own countries should acknowledge the authority of the king and obey him in these areas. It is a very complicated relationship, and the king or emperor was supposed to further the spiritual work of the papacy, support the Church, practice the Christian faith, and encourage and support the Church.

This is like the Cain and Abel relationship of foundation substance. We looked at how this developed and what the foundation of substance was established during this time in medieval Christendom. Often, we talk about the failure of the state, but here it is mostly the failure of the Church, the popes. Instead of acknowledging the authority of the emperor or the kings, the popes thought they had authority over the emperor and the kings. Pope Boniface VIII took away all the privileges granted by previous popes to the kings of France. He demanded that Philip, the king of France, come before a council in Rome to answer certain charges he wanted to bring against him. He declared the theological basis for this, stating that God has placed him over the kings and kingdoms. Philip did not like this imperialistic papacy and responded, 'Your venerable conceitedness may know that we are nobody's vassal in temporal matters.' This articulated the principle understanding of the relationship between king and pope. Instead, he summoned the pope to a council to answer charges of sodomy, simony, sorcery, and heresy.

The king of France accused the pope of being a heretic, which is interesting. The pope, on the other hand, responded because he was not going to take this lying down. He stated that it is necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. In other words, unless every person acknowledges and accepts the absolute authority of the pope, they cannot go to heaven. If you do not accept the pope's authority and obey him, he has the authority to excommunicate you and declare that you cannot go to heaven and will not be saved. The French king and the French nobles were not going to take this lying down either, so they went to forcibly take the pope to France to answer these charges. Boniface was shocked by being roughed up and died shortly afterwards. Then, of course, you have the papacy being taken from Rome to Avignon and later moved back to Rome.

Then we talked about the Roman Cardinals after Gregory moved the papacy back to Rome. Shortly after that, he died, and all the Cardinals of Rome gathered together to elect a new pope, Urban VI. This upset the Cardinals, leading them to elect a rival pope, Clement VII, who went off to Avignon. This created a huge crisis of legitimacy, with two popes causing a split across Europe. You can see this division, with some areas loyal to the pope in Avignon and others to the pope in Rome. It was a significant conflict, and eventually, a council was convened where a third pope was elected, but he refused to step down. Eventually, at the Council of Constance, two popes resigned, but one refused to do so, leading to the election of Martin V as the new pope. At the same time, the Council of Constance invited Jan Hus, a reformer from Prague, to present his ideas about church reform.

Before discussing England during this time, we should note the beginning of various reform movements. We looked at many reform movements that were accepted and successful. Amidst the political corruption, other reformers emerged in England, such as William Wycliffe, an Oxford professor of theology at Balliol College. He challenged the Church of his time, asserting that the Bible is the only valid source of doctrine and the only pertinent measure of legitimacy. His challenge to the corruption he observed inspired many, leading to the formation of groups called the Lollards. They critiqued the Church, arguing that it did not need all its temporal wealth, similar to the non-possessors in Russia, who also believed the Church should focus on the spiritual rather than material wealth.

The Lollards argued that church officials should not interfere in secular matters, similar to how party officials in some countries might interfere in governance. They promoted the idea of a universal priesthood, suggesting that anyone could become a priest. This was a very Protestant movement, sparking political reform as well. The Peasants' Revolt was led by John Ball, one of the clerics who was a Lollard. Jan Hus, influenced by Wycliffe's ideas, initiated a reform movement in Bohemia, leading to the Hussites, who sought to reform the Church in their region. At the Council of Constance, Hus presented his ideas but was arrested, tried for heresy, and executed. This led to the Hussite Wars, where Catholic forces attempted to suppress the Hussite heresy in Bohemia.

The Catholic Church at that time appeared unreformable. In the past, it had been open to reform, but it had become ossified. Even sincere Christians who sought reform were often met with resistance and persecution. God's work through history became stuck with the medieval Church, which was unable to realise God's three blessings. The Church's refusal to allow reforms often resulted in violent revolutions instead. In late medieval society in Western Europe, the original mind was repressed, and free development was blocked by feudalism. The social structure was highly stratified, with kings, dukes, earls, barons, knights, yeomen, and peasants, who were tied to the land and had little social or economic freedom.

People born into a particular social class remained there for their entire lives, which stifled creativity and the original mind. The Church, rather than challenging this system, supported it, as it was also hierarchical and wedded to feudal society. The Church was a vast landowner, controlling many peasants who could not move freely. This led to a very ritualistic and dogmatic Church, where positions like priesthood and bishoprics could be bought and sold. The failure of the Crusades further diminished religious freedom, and the path to restoring original nature, which desires to realise the three blessings, was blocked. Without social, economic, and religious freedom, it was impossible to realise these blessings, leading to stagnation in some societies for thousands of years.

However, the impulse of the heart is to realise the three blessings, an irrepressible desire inherent in everyone. To the extent that people follow this impulse, they seek ways to worship God according to their conscience and improve their social and economic situations. This irrepressible heart leads to the breakdown of barriers, as seen in current events in places like Myanmar, where people strive to create a society that allows them to realise the three blessings. It's akin to how plants break through concrete; a seed can grow in a small crack, expanding until the concrete breaks apart. This irrepressible life cannot be contained, just as human beings cannot be contained in oppressive systems.

God's word aims to break through the medieval Church, which has become so ossified. Two historical movements, the Renaissance and the Reformation, are often simplified but are interrelated. Both aimed to break through the barriers of the ossified social system to create a society where people could realise the three blessings. The first blessing, religious freedom, allows for mind-body unity and becoming a God-centered person, enabling individuals to worship God according to their conscience. The second blessing expands from family to society, necessitating the rule of law to establish a free society. The third blessing involves rightful dominion over creation, requiring free market and property ownership.

To trace which societies were able to create environments conducive to realising these blessings, we refer to the Divine Principle, which states that we are created to attain perfection by fulfilling our given responsibilities of our own free will, without God's direct assistance. We are to become mature individuals of integrity through our own choices. Free will means we must have the freedom to make decisions and bear the consequences of those decisions. Just as Adam and Eve had to make choices, we too must attain oneness with God and acquire true autonomy, governed by our original mind and conscience. This pursuit of freedom and autonomy is a calling of our original nature, leading us to seek the freedom to be responsible and make informed decisions.

As adults, we are expected to be responsible for our decisions without relying on others for guidance. A mature person understands God's will through their conscience and acts accordingly, without needing divine revelations. We should not wait for God to tell us what to do; instead, we must work these things out for ourselves. It is natural to pursue reason and understanding, as this enables us to make informed decisions. We are endowed with a God-given right to master the natural world, which is evident in children who desire to build and create. They want the sense of accomplishment that comes from mastering tasks themselves, whether it be puzzles or other creative endeavours. This God-given right to master the natural world should be welcomed, as it fosters curiosity and understanding through science, which is essential for creating a pleasant living environment and ensuring we have enough food to eat.

The Renaissance was driven by the ability to create a better, more pleasant living environment, which is why we value the natural world, pursue science, and esteem practical life. Historically, the Renaissance is recognised as having started in Florence, an Italian city-state, around the 14th century. You might wonder why Florence was the birthplace of this movement. The political reality and the environment at the time were significant; the people of Florence loved freedom and had the liberty to be creative and pursue beauty, truth, and goodness. This freedom was supported by good governance, which allowed them to leave feudalism behind and establish a society based on merchants and commerce, creating a free market where individuals could start their own businesses and change their social status. The government protected private property, and the Medici family, who were influential at the time, patronised artists, attracting many who sought the freedom to create.

The conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks brought many Greek scholars and texts to Italy, which had a profound impact on the Renaissance. These scholars brought manuscripts and knowledge that had not been seen in Western Europe before, leading to a revival of Greek and Roman thought and culture. This rebirth became the driving force behind the modern world, starting in Florence. The intellectual basis of the Renaissance was a version of humanism, derived from the concept of Roman humanitas and the rediscovery of classical Greek philosophy. This new thinking manifested in various fields, including art, architecture, politics, science, and literature, leading to a reevaluation and renewal of medieval culture.

The quality of art changed significantly during this time, particularly in Florence, with artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci emerging. Renaissance humanists did not reject Christianity; rather, they synthesised it with classical thought. Many of the greatest works of the Renaissance were devoted to Christian themes, and the Church patronised this art. The profound spirituality expressed through these works marked a high point in world culture, as artists were inspired by the divine. In science, the relationship between science and religion was not one of conflict; the Church sponsored scientific development alongside the arts. For example, Copernicus, a Roman Catholic canon, proposed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and this idea was not controversial at the time.

Galileo Galilei later contributed to this synthesis by asserting that the laws of nature are mathematical. He believed that God endowed humanity with senses, reason, and intellect, expecting us to use them. He famously stated that mathematics is the language in which God wrote the universe. Galileo argued that in disputes about natural phenomena, one should rely on sensory experience rather than scripture. He faced challenges when his observations contradicted the teachings of the Church, which had adhered to Aristotelian science. This conflict arose not from an anti-science stance but from the Church's commitment to established authority and tradition.

Arthur Koestler, a Hungarian writer, explored these themes in his book 'The Sleepwalkers', examining the relationship between Galileo and the Church. The Church had adopted Aristotelian science, which was considered authoritative. When Galileo's findings contradicted this established view, it threatened the authority of many scholars who had built their careers on Aristotelian principles. Koestler noted that the inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are often demonstrated by professionals with a vested interest in tradition, rather than by the general populace. This resistance to change posed a significant challenge to the advancement of knowledge during the Renaissance.

The conflict between religion and science has long been an academic problem, and this issue persists in scientific circles today. It is well known that when new ideas emerge, older scientists often reject them because these ideas undermine their previous work. It is said that science progresses one death at a time; as older scientists pass away, new ideas gradually gain acceptance. People often assume that science is based solely on rationality, but scientists are human beings, just like everyone else. They do not appreciate having their authority challenged any more than religious individuals do.

For instance, if one were to assert that the Gospel of Mark was not the earliest gospel, but rather that the Gospel of Matthew holds that distinction, New Testament scholars would be quite unhappy. This is because much of the scholarship over the last fifty to one hundred years has been predicated on the belief that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest. Disputing this notion threatens to undermine the entire field of biblical scholarship. Essentially, this is the dynamic at play, and it mirrors what occurred with Galileo. The threat he faced did not come solely from religious authorities, but also from other scientists who held positions within the Church.