JOURNAL OF UNIFICATION STUDIES VOLUME IX 2008 An Alternative Unificationist Family Church Model: Where, Why and How It Works Chad Hoover The Need for a Critical Edition of Reverend Moon's Words Andrew Wilson The Gospel of Judas: Is it a Hoax? Richard L. Arthur 'Abel" Toward an UN? The Unification Movement and the United Nations Michael L. Mickler The Role of Unification Thought and a UN Peace Council in Solving the Problems of the Middle East Thomas J. Ward Blessed are the Peacemakers: Albert Schweitzer as Exemplar Mark D. Isaacs Depossession Healing: A Comparison of Therapy" William Baldwin's "Spirit Releasement and Dae Mo Nim's Ancestor Liberation Kerry Pohanz Yang and Yin: Unification Thought, Science, and the Book of Changes David Burton Author-Subject Index 1 997-2007 Editor Andrew Wilson Editorial Board: Tyler O. Hendricks Michael L. Mickler Andrew Wilson Production: Andrew Wilson The Journal of Unification Studies, a journal of the Unification Theological Seminary, is a forum for committed engagement with Unification theology and practice, addressing concerns of the theological community and the professional ministry. To clarify foundational issues in Unification theology, the Journal oj Unification Studies welcomes commentary and critical studies of texts and doctrines, as well as historical studies of the Unification Church and the life of its founder. To promote dialogue and understanding, it invites papers from diverse viewpoints which engage Unificationist themes, as well as papers which build bridges to other communities of faith. To foster living spirituality, it welcomes essays discussing the relationship between theology and practice. To address contemporary social, cultural, political, scientific and economic issues from a Unificationist perspective, the journal solicits social commentaries and reviews of current books, films, and media. The Journal of Unification Studies is published annually or semi-annually by the Unification Theological Seminary, 30 Seminary Drive, Barrytown, New York, 12507 Subscription rates are $17.50 per issue in the United States, $25.00 for institutions and overseas. Make checks payable to the Unification Theological Seminary. To order call 845-752-3000 x226. Submissions and inquiries may be sent to the editor by mail at the above address, by fax to 845-752-3014, or by e-mail at [email protected]. ISSN: 1097-1769 2008 Unification Theological Seminary Journal of Unification Studies Vol. IX 2008 An Alternative Unificationist Family Church Model: Where, Why and How It Works Chad Hoover 1 The Need for a Critical Edition of Reverend Moon's Words Andrew Wilson 15 The Gospel of Judas: Is it a Hoax? Richard L. Arthur 35 "Abel" Toward an UN? The Unification Movement and the United Nations Michael L. Mickler 49 The Role of Unification Thought and a UN Peace Council in Solving the Problems of the Middle East Hiomas J. Ward 85 Blessed are the Peacemakers: Albert Schweitzer as Exemplar Mark D.Isaacs 119 Depossession Healing: A Comparison of William Baldwin's Therapy" "Spirit Releasement and Dae Mo Nim's Ancestor Liberation Kerry Pobanz 1 43 Yang and Yin: Unification Thought, Science, and the Book of Changes David Burton 1 63 Author-Subject Index 1997-2007 185 AN ALTERNATIVE UNIFICATIONIST FAMILY CHURCH MODEL: WHERE, WHY AND HOW IT WORKS Chad Hoover During the past year, the Unification Movement in the United States has conducted a series of focus groups, called "Witnessing Summits," in order to study best practices and to brainstorm about ways in which the movement might become more effective in its outreach. Out of these meetings, there has developed a consensus that there are two specific audiences which the movement should try to reach. The first of these is a traditional one for new religious movements; young people ages 18 to 35. The second is families. The two groups are generally viewed as having different interests and needs. This paper will provide the background and some detail about a model for both outreach and inreach which focuses on the two groups, young adults and families, concurrently. For Unificationists living in non-metropolitan areas in the United States today, it is almost impossible to maintain the infrastructure for two separate programs. Thus identifying ways to bring these groups together for spiritual development and fellowship is a practical necessity. If this model can work in non-metropolitan areas, it may also suggest new opportunities for synergies between young adult outreach and family outreach in metropolitan areas. For over two decades my wife and I have been developing an approach campus at Cornell in New to ministry and mission on University, Ithaca, York. This development has largely been driven by adaptation, not theory. At were then in common use the first, we tried to apply models which by Chad Hoover is a graduate of the Unification Theological Seminary (1980) and a Bachelor of Architecture degree from the Cooper practicing architect. He received a Union in 1976 and a M.S. in Architecture from Cornell University in 1984. He and to Unificationist students and his wife Ann Glesne Hoover lead a lay ministry outreach activities on the Cornell campus. Journal of UnificationStudies Vol. IX, 2008 1 Journal of Unification Studies Unification Church and by CARP, the collegiate student outreach organiza tion affiliated with the Unification Church. Over time we observed that many aspects of these models were not applicable to our situation. Gradually, we experimented and found different ways to be more effective in outreach and inreach. More recently, as we observed that these old models were also being discarded in other locations, we realized that some of our discoveries and methods might be instructive for others in different mission and ministry environments. Ironically, what began as a fine-tuning to meet local needs on the Cornell campus has resulted in the most promising inreach and outreach activities of the Unification Movement in Central New York. This is not boasting but only a reflection of the specific difficulties of maintaining and developing Unificationist activities in remote if not rural areas in the United States. The first sections of this paper will examine some commonly held assumptions which we found problematic to our work. The last sections describe the model we've developed and explain why we think the model may be applicable to conditions beyond Ithaca. Critiquing the Status Quo Commonly Held Assumptions about Mission Fields It is stating the obvious that the United States is neither Japan nor Korea. Still, these two countries continue to be the ones which our American movement looks toward for successful models. This is because the church has been established longer in these countries than the U.S. Also the United States was missionized by Unificationists from these countries and our senior leaders until very recently have been almost exclusively selected from Japanese and Korean Unificationist missionaries. It is an open question whether missionizing in this country has been or should be more contextualized. This paper focuses on a small component of contextualization which largely has to do with the venue, rather than the content of what is communicated about Unificationism. Several standards need to be defined. In this paper, when referring to Hoon Dok Hae format worship services the content is restricted to the published and unpublished transcripts of speeches given by the Founder. Principle Education refers to the Outlines the Principle (Levels I through and of IV) the Exposition ofthe Hoover: Alternative Family Church Model 3 Principle as the authoritative texts from which lectures or presentations are derived. Although venue may sound insignificant relative to content, it is not, as will be shown. Demographics and geography may be easily overlooked, but they can have great impact on venue choices for worship and spiritual education. The geographic and demographic differences between the United States, Korea and Japan are quite significant Simply put, taken as a whole, the United States is much less dense in terms of population than either of these countries and its land mass is more than an order of magnitude greater. In addition, the number of members in the United States is commonly identified as around 3,000 active families. In Japan the number is approxi mately 10 times as large. Korean membership is harder to gauge because affiliation is less clearly defined, but is generally acknowledged to be somewhat smaller than Japan's. Thus national population densities, physical distances and church membership numbers all are factors which are seldom addressed when discussing mission and ministry placement, but they should be. When leaders and paradigms are transplanted from Japan or Korea to metropolitan areas in the United States, the perceived population density differences are not very pronounced. In fact, some metropolitan areas, such as New York, Washington, D.C, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles or San Francisco no doubt have densities which exceed some of the less densely populated mission areas of Japan or Korea. "grow" From a pragmatic perspective, leadership which is trying to a church might simply take the perspective that the most fertile mission fields are to be found in metropolitan areas and that the majority of efforts and resources should be placed there in order to maximize growth. As reasonable as this may seem on the surface, there are several factors which need to be considered before perpetuating an outreach approach which doesn't work well in urban areas and doesn't work at all in the less densely populated areas of the country. First, the Founder has persistently directed that there shall be mission mid-80' activities in all 50 States. Additionally, in the s there was an initiative to create a minimum of 5 church centers in each state. For less populated states this was extremely difficult and by necessity had to include some very small communities.