God’s heart has been expressed in three ways during the process of creation and the dispensation of restoration. These three forms of God’s heart are His heart of hope, His heart of sorrow, and His heart of pain.

God’s Heart of Hope

God’s heart of hope is the heart God experienced during the time of creation. It refers to God’s joyful feelings, full of expectation and hope, in anticipation of begetting Adam and Eve, His first, most beloved children, to whom He could devote His unlimited love. When His heart of hope is finally fulfilled God will be filled with indescribable, limitless joy. In reality, God’s heart was filled with indescribable, incredible joy at the moment when Adam and Eve were actually born.

According to modern physics, the universe began to be formed about 15 billion years ago. From the perspective of Unification Thought, God began to create the universe at that time. What was everything for? It was all for the sake of creating Adam and Eve, His most beloved children. In the hope of seeing the moment when His children would be born, God spent much time creating the universe, in spite of the grueling character of the effort necessary in making a total investment. God, being filled with hope, however, did not feel the process of creating the universe as too long or too arduous, its length and difficulty notwithstanding.

We can realize through our own experiences that this is true. When we work for something joyful, we do not feel the work to be so grueling, no matter how many hardships are experienced. We even forget about the time, because we know that joy awaits us in the future. God’s expectation of joy was far greater than any kind of joy we may experience. Moreover, the joy God felt when Adam and Eve were actually born was so profound that it can not be easily compared to anything else.

God’s Heart of Sorrow

God’s heart of sorrow refers to the heart of God at the moment when Adam and Eve fell away from Him into the realm of death, which came to be under the control of Satan. It is analogous to the grieving heart of parents who lose their children. In the early days of the Unification Church, when speaking about the heart of God at that time, Rev. Sun Myung Moon would weep bitterly when he spoke about the fall of Adam and Eve.

God commenced the providence of restoration immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve. Ever since that time, God has been advancing His providence in hope of seeing the world of joy realized in the future when His will is finally accomplished. Yet, fallen people have been painfully indifferent to God’s providence, continually indulging in corruption and violence. Whenever God saw this, it brought profound grief to His heart. God, who has thus been advancing His providence in history, became a God of han, or deep mortification, as well as a God of unfathomable sorrow. Since His expectation and hope at the time of creation were so great, His sorrow and disappointment due to the human fall, was all the greater.

Even among human beings, when a child whom the parents dearly love is dying, they, the mother in particular, will feel unfathomable sadness and grieve deeply. Even when a child’s illness is very serious and the parents are told that the child will die, they will still try everything in their power to keep the child alive, by any means available. This is what the parental heart is like. So, when the child does eventually die, even though the parents knew it would happen, they still feel as though their hearts have been cut to pieces, and they are completely at a loss as to what to do. This is the heart of parents, especially the heart of a mother.

The sorrowful Heart of God at the time of the fall of Adam and Eve and the sorrowful Heart of God, who has had to watch Adam and Eve and their descendants suffering in the world under Satan’s dominion, which is like a prison, was too great to be compared with anything, even with the heart of human parents who have lost their children. Since the beginning of history, there has been no person who has ever grieved as much as God. This is one aspect of God’s Heart, as described by Rev. Moon.

Heart of Pain

God’s heart of pain refers to the bitter feelings God has experienced, having had to endure watching the central figures in His providential history being persecuted by Satan and his agents. God did not abandon fallen human beings, but continually sent prophets, saints and sages in order to bring them to life again. Nevertheless, people did not easily follow the teachings of God’s people but rather persecuted them, and sometimes even killed them. Every time God witnessed the saints and sages suffering from persecution, God would feel as though a nail was being driven into His chest, or His side was being pierced by a spear.

Those saints and sages were righteous men whom God sent to save human beings in the fallen world. Accordingly, God felt as if He Himself had received contempt, ridicule and persecution. This reveals another heart which God has endured in the course of the providence of restora-tion: the heart of pain.

3. Understanding God’s Heart

Through an education of heart, children should come to understand the three kinds of God’s heart as described above, especially the heart of God in the course of the providence of restoration. Therefore, I will introduce an understanding of God’s heart as it was during the courses of Adam’s family, Noah’s family, and Abraham’s family, as well as in Moses’ course and Jesus’ course. What follows is an introduction to God’s heart according to the teachings of faith of Rev. Moon.

God’s Heart as Experienced in Adam’s Family

When God created Adam and Eve, He was filled with boundless expectation, hope and joy, but when Adam and Eve fell away from Him, God’s grief knew no limit. Therefore, in order to save Adam’s family, God encouraged Cain and Abel, their children, to make offerings. God, of course, very much hoped that they would succeed in their offerings.

There may be those who suspect that, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, He might have known from the very beginning that Adam and Eve, and later Cain and Abel, would fail. If this were the case, then how could God have grieved in the true sense? This, however, is not a correct understanding.

God was, of course, aware that there was a possibility of the human fall. Even so, since God is the God of heart and hope, His desire for human beings to succeed and not to fall was incomparably stronger than his fear that they might fall.

The same thing can be said of the offerings by Cain and Abel. Since God’s expectation for their offering was so great and His hope was so strong, He virtually ignored the possibility of their failure in the offering. Here we can distinguish a difference between heart and reason. God’s impulse of heart is so strong as to override reason.

At the time of Adam and Eve, and also at the time of Cain and Abel, God was a God of expectation and hope, who wished, absolutely, for nothing less than their complete success. Sadly, however, Adam and Eve, and also Cain and Abel, failed. Because of that, God’s sorrow and disappointment were incomparably intense. However, even at such sad moments as these, God could not simply break down in tears, losing His dignity, no matter how sorrowful He felt, because Satan was watching. If God had openly expressed His deep sorrow, He would have seemed to Satan as miserable, and lacking dignity and authority. That is why all God could do was leave, silently, with His head bowed and tragedy etched on his face, having to suppress the sorrow welling up from within. This is what Rev. Moon revealed about God’s heart in Adam’s family in the early days of his ministry.

God’s Heart as Experienced in Noah’s Family

After God left Adam’s family He walked a wilderness path for the long period of 1,600 years, looking for someone on earth with whom He could work. In all this time, no one welcomed God: everyone turned away from Him. There was not a single home where God could dwell, not a single square meter of land for Him to stand on, nor a single person whom He could relate to. God walked the lonely path of a miserable God, literally all alone in the world. In that condition, God finally found Noah. God’s joy at that moment was beyond comparison. Yet, due to the providential situation, God had to give Noah a very difficult direction, which was to build the ark. Noah accepted God’s direction and faithfully devoted himself in building the ark, for 120 long years, all the while suffering ridicule and contempt from the people.

Noah was not a “son of God.” He was established merely as a “servant of God” and a righteous man. Yet, God was so pleased to meet such a man as Noah that He walked the path of suffering in the position of a servant together with Noah.

However, after the flood, since Noah’s son Ham did not fulfill his portion of responsibility, Noah’s family, which had been saved from the flood, was invaded by Satan. When that happened, God again felt heart-breaking pain and sorrow. Deeply disheartened, God had to leave Noah’s family.

God’s Heart as Experienced in Abraham’s Family

Four hundred years later, God found Abraham and established him within the providence. The most serious time for Abraham in his providential course was when he was required to offer Isaac, his only son, whom he had begotten at the age of one hundred years (Gen. 21:5). God directed Abraham, who had failed in his symbolic offering of a dove and a pigeon, a ram and a goat, and a heifer, to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham’s heart at that point was unimaginably painful. He was at a loss as to whether he should keep Isaac alive, according to human ethics, or offer him, according to Heaven’s demand. In his heart, at that moment, Abraham would much rather have sacrificed himself than he would his son.

Nevertheless, he ultimately determined in his mind to sacrifice Isaac, in accordance with God’s order: he decided to follow Heaven’s direction, thus sacrificing his own heart. He wandered around Mount Moriah for three days. This three day period was a long, painful path for Abraham. During that time, God did not merely watch from afar; but having issued such a strict order to “sacrifice your own son,” God suffered along with Abraham, suffering even more as He watched Abraham’s suffering. When Abraham was about to sacrifice his beloved son, Issac with his sword, on Mount Moriah, God stopped his act of killing and said, “Now I know that you fear God” (Gen. 22:12).

Abraham’s heart to follow God’s will, his absolute faith, obedience, and loyalty established the condition of having killed Isaac, even though in fact he had not. That is why God was able to stop Abraham just before killing Isaac, and He provided him with a ram to offer as a burnt offering, instead of his son. “Now I know that you fear God” was an expression of His joy in seeing Abraham’s loyalty, being willing to offer even his son Isaac as a sacrifice, as well as His regret at Abraham’s failure in the earlier symbolic offering.

God’s Heart as Experienced in Moses’ Course

Moses was raised as a prince in the palace of the Pharaoh of Egypt. After he witnessed the suffering of his people, the Israelites, however, he decided to lead them to the land of Canaan according to the will of God. After many difficulties and setbacks, he led them out of Egypt and into the wilderness. The Israelites, however, revolted against him, their leader, each time they encountered difficulty. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, after having completed forty days of fasting on the mountain and receiving from God the two tablets of stone, he found the Israelites worshipping a golden calf. Seeing such an act of faithlessness and blasphemy, Moses, in anger, dashed the tablets to the ground, thus smashing them into pieces. At that moment, God said, “Behold, it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them” (Exod. 32:9-10).

How did Moses feel at that moment? Faced with God’s wrath to the extent that He even wanted to destroy the Israelites, Moses’ love and loyal heart for his people welled up within him at that moment. No matter how difficult it might be, Moses felt that he had to save his people by any means, even at the cost of his life. He appealed to God, saying, “Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people” (Exod. 32:12). In the face of Moses’ fervent appeal, God refrained from destroying the Israelites.

After the Israelites had wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and finally arrived at a place called Kadesh Barnea, the Israelites complained to Moses yet again, saying, “There is nothing to eat here.” Out of frustration and anger at the Israelites, who were demonstrating utter faithlessness toward God, Moses struck the rock twice, thus going against God’s will. God later called Moses to the top of Mount Pisgah. Showing him the promised land of Canaan, which Moses had labored so hard to reach, God said, “You shall not go there, into the land which I give to the people of Israel” (DNeut. 32:52). God had no choice but to speak this way to the 120-year-old Moses, who had twice-fasted for 40 days and had suffered greatly for 40 years in the wilderness, all in order to lead the Israelites. In fact, it was God’s desire to allow Moses, the leader of the Exodus, to enter the land of Canaan. However, due to Satan’s accusation (based on Moses’ having struck the rock twice), God had to take such an extreme measure, even unwillingly. In so addressing Moses, God felt deep sorrow and pain.

God’s Heart as Experienced in Jesus’ Course

As prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6), Jesus was born on earth as the Messiah. The entire world should have welcomed him wholeheartedly, but even from childhood he experienced heart-breaking rejection. His family rejected him; his religion (Judaism) rejected him; and his nation (Israel) rejected him. In the end, there was virtually no place wherein he could find any acceptance.

For 33 years, including his three years of public ministry, Jesus spent most of his days by himself, experiencing a life of loneliness. He expressed his lonely heart, saying, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head” (Luke 9:58). When he looked at the temple at Jerusalem, he tearfully rebuked the Israelites, saying, “The days shall come upon you, when your enemies . . . will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation” (Luke 19:43-44).

As he walked along the shores of the Sea of Galilee in order to divert his mind from his loneliness, he once spoke with a woman of Samaria, who was not one of the chosen people (John 4:7-26). He expressed his mortified mind to the leaders of Judaism, saying, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31). God walked with this lonely Jesus through such a lonely path.

In the end, when Jesus was crucified, how deep the grief in the heart of God as He watched His beloved son, Jesus, miserably dying! Deploring that he could not save Jesus from the cross, God could not even bear to watch, but had to turn His face away. Seeing Jesus on the cross, God suffered even more than Jesus himself.

4. Introducing God’s Heart

All of the above episodes are accounts described by Rev. Moon in his tearful sermons during the early days of his ministry. From him we come to know the heart of God in the courses of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Furthermore, behind the tribulations of the saints, sages, and righteous people of other religions and other nations, there was the heart of God constantly guiding them. Through an education of heart, teachers and parents should introduce the heart of God to children. In addition to talking to them about God’s heart, they can teach them through TV, radio, movies, videos, novels, plays, paintings, and various other means of communication.

5. Education of Heart through Practice

It is necessary not only to teach God’s Heart through words, but especially to manifest it directly through the practice of love. To do this, parents must first seriously love their children in the family. While parents raise their children by feeding, then clothing, then sheltering, then teaching them propriety, and so on, more importantly parents must always love their children with a warm and sincere heart. This is the true love of parents for their children. If parents consistently give such a quality of love to their children, the children will naturally come to sincerely respect their parents and practice filial piety. Furthermore, the children themselves would come to love each other. This is because God’s heart is conveyed through the parents’ practice of true love towards their children.

The same thing can be said of school education. Teachers must express the true love of God through their words and actions. Needless to say, teachers should competently and sincerely teach their students each subject. Not only that, but since school education is basically an extension of family education, teachers must guide their students wholeheartedly, and with a parental heart, regarding them as their own children.

God’s love should be conveyed through the teachers’ daily words and deeds, since the teachers’ every word and deed, private or public, become the material content for the students’ learning, and for the formation of their character. When students receive such a school education filled with love, their heart will be moved, and they will come to respect and willingly follow their teachers. Furthermore, they will want to practice true love in the same way that their teachers do. This is an education of heart through one’s practice in the family and in the school.

B. The Education of Norm

An Education for the Perfection of the Family

An education for the perfection of the family refers to the education necessary for the nurturing of a man and a woman; at the time of their marriage they should have fulfilled the conditions for becoming an original husband and wife by resembling the harmony of God’s Yang and Yin.

Since the human fall involved a failure to observe the norm (com-mandment of God), this education is, first of all, an education of norm designed to lead human beings in such a way that they observe God’s commandment. It is the education necessary to a man and a woman in order for them to gain the qualifications to become a principled husband and wife and form a family. A man must be fully equipped with the way of a husband; and a woman, with the way of a wife. The education of norm also includes learning the proper behavior expected of parents, the proper behavior expected of children, and the proper relationships necessary among brothers and sisters in the family.

Through this education of norm, the sanctity and mystery of the sexual relationship should be communicated with special care. A sexual relationship is something to be experienced only through marriage, and should never be violated at anytime, before or after marriage. According to the Bible, God told Adam and Eve, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (Gen. 2:17). This means that the sexual relationship is sacred, and must never be violated.

That commandment was intended not only for Adam and Eve, but for everyone, and it still maintains its validity today. This commandment is a supreme directive which will continue to be valid in the future as well. This supreme directive holds also that, after marriage, husband and wife can never, under any circumstances, have an illicit sexual relationship, that is, a sexual relationship with any person other than their spouse. Thus, the education of norm is, first of all, an education designed to nurture man and woman to the point of resembling God’s harmony of Yang and Yin, all the while observing the commandment of God. In other words, it is the education necessary for one to achieve the qualification to become a husband or a wife.

An Education for Becoming a Being of Reason-Law

Since human beings were created through Logos (reason-law), the education of norm, at the same time, refers to the education through which one becomes a being of reason-law, who lives according to the Way of Heaven. Education of norm, therefore, is also called education of reason-law. The Way of Heaven is the law permeating the universe. It refers to the law of give and receive action. Two kinds of laws derive from the Way of Heaven: the law of value and the law of nature. Of these two, the law of value form the norm. As there are both vertical order and horizontal order in the universe, so there are vertical order and horizontal order in the family. Accordingly, in the family there are vertical values and horizontal values which correspond to those two orders. In addition, there are individual values. The topic of values has already been treated in some detail in the chapter on “Axiology.”

The education of norm must be accompanied by an education of heart, since an education of norm per se necessarily has an obligatory nature, as can be seen in such normative directives as “You must not do this”; “You ought to do that”; and so forth. If such norms are not imbued with love, they can easily become excessively formal and legalistic. Therefore, an education of norm must be conducted in an atmosphere of love.

Love without norm is usually called blind love. Should parents or teachers express such love to children, they may become unreflective individuals, and end up with a despising heart. Parental love and the love of teachers must have some form of authority and dignity. In order to be of that nature, their love must be in accordance with Logos. In case there is too little love with too much emphasis on norms, the children will come to feel restricted and may revolt against their parents or teachers. Love should transcend norms, and should not be dominated by them. Even in the case where children may fail to obey norms once or twice, still they must be forgiven with warm love.

Love forgives and accepts everything, whereas a norm has the nature of strict regulation. Love is harmonious and round, whereas a norm is, so to speak, linear. Love and norms must be united. Since love is round and a norm is linear, a person in whom love and norm are united becomes a person of character in whom a circle and a straight line are united. In other words, a person of character refers to a person who, in a unified way, possesses the aspect of being the most harmonious, and at the same time possesses the aspect of being the strictest. A person with this kind of character can sometimes be very kind and at other times be very strict, and yet they can always assume the most appropriate attitude according to the time and place.

Therefore, an education of norm must be united with an education of heart. In other words, an education of norm must be given to children in a warm atmosphere of love both in the family and at school. If love becomes cool or cold, norms become formal and oppressive.

C. The Education of Dominion

An Education for the Perfection of the Nature of Dominion

An education of dominion refers to that education we receive which prepares us to manifest our dominion over the creation. In order to perfect one’s nature of dominion, one must first acquire knowledge about the objects over which one is to have dominion. Intellectual education, or the education of knowledge, is necessary for that purpose.

Next, one needs to be educated in those techniques through which one can express the creativity necessary to have dominion over objects. That purpose is served by technical education. Furthermore, in order for us to become the subjects of dominion, our physical strength must be developed. That purpose is realized through physical education. Thus, intellectual education, technical education, and physical education, together, are all included in the education of dominion.

Through an intellectual education we obtain the knowledge necessary for us to have dominion. Intellectual education comprises various fields including the natural sciences, politics, economics, social studies, cultural studies, and so on, according to the field of dominion. All of these are included in the concept of dominion over all things.

Since technology is a direct means of exercising dominion over all things, technical education serves as the core in the education of dominion. Finally, needless to say, physical education and the promotion of physical ability is important for a dominion over all things. In technical education and physical education as well, there are various specialized fields. For example, the education of art, particularly education in the performing arts, may be regarded as a kind of technical education.

In short, the purpose of an education of dominion is to become well-versed in the various methods of developing one’s creativity. Creativity is inborn; everyone is naturally endowed with a creative potentiality. An education of dominion, however, is necessary in order to actually mani-fest it.

Development of One’s Creativity and Formation of the Two-Stage Structure

The development of one’s creativity refers to the cultivation of one’s ability to form an inner four position foundation and to enhance one’s skill in forming an outer four position foundation, thus resembling God’s two-stage structure of creation.

The ability to form an inner four position foundation refers to one’s ability to form a logos, or to construct a plan. In order to be able to develop a logos, one must acquire a great deal of knowledge through intellectual education, and thus enhance the contents of the inner Hyungsang (ideas, concepts, etc.) qualitatively as well as quantitatively. The more knowledge (information) one obtains, the richer and deeper one’s ideas become. To form a logos means to develop a new idea. Technical innovations in industry are also developed through the repetitive creation of ever-new kinds of logos.

Following this, the cultivation of one’s ability to form the outer four position foundation refers to the enhancement of one’s ability to substantiate ideas through the use of tools and materials according to a certain plan-in other words the development of skills in conducting outer give and receive action. Here, technical education is required. Of course, good physical condition is required as well. Therefore, improving one’s physical strength through physical education is also necessary.

One’s Education of Dominion must be Based on a Universal Education

An education of dominion must be carried out on the basis of, and in conjunction with, an education of heart and an education of norm. Only when based on heart (love) and norm can one’s intellectual, technical, and physical education become wholesome, and one’s creativity be fully manifested.

An education of heart and an education of norm constitute a “universal education” since they must be given universally to all people. On the other hand, an education of dominion should be given to people according to their abilities, interests, and desires. Some may major in natural science, others in literature, and still others in economics, and so forth. Thus, the field a person chooses varies depending on that person’s preference and aptitude. In this sense, an education of dominion becomes, in principle, an “individual education.”

It can be said that universal education and individual education are in the relationship of Sungsang and Hyungsang. The reason is that an education of heart and of norm are a more spiritual education, that is, an education of the mind, whereas an education of dominion is a more material education since it is for exercising dominion over all things. Accordingly, a universal education (an education of heart and of norm) and an individual education (an education of dominion) must be carried out together in a relationship of subject and object. That is what is meant by a “balanced education” (see fig. 5.2).

In ancient Greece, in the Middle Ages, and in the Modern Age, there was always an effort to provide an education of love and an education of ethical and moral principles, even though the teachings provided were not perfect. Today, however, these kinds of education are being almost totally neglected. In many cases what can be called an “unbalanced education,” with an excessive emphasis on knowledge and technique, is being practiced. As a result, the healthy growth of human nature is being severely hampered. Therefore, a new theory of education must be advocated, whereby an education of true love and of ethics and morality can be conveyed on an entirely new level. It will be on this new basis that an intellectual and technical education can most appropriately
be conducted. Only through such a balanced education can science and technology be guided in the proper direction. Then, such problems as pollution and the destruction of nature will naturally be solved. Moreover, through this kind of education, teachers will once again be able to regain their authority as teachers.

It should be re-emphasized here that the starting point of education lies in family education. School education is primarily an extension and development of family education. Accordingly, family education and school education must be closely united. Otherwise, it would be difficult for an education of heart and of norm, as universal education, to be carried out. Unity in education could hardly be expected if family education and school education were not united.

III. Image of the Ideally-Educated Person

Since the beginning of history, many scholars have advocated various kinds of theories of education, each with its own image of the ideally-educated person. The Unification Theory of Education also has an image of the ideally-educated person. In the Unification Theory of Education this image is as follows: first of all, a person of character; second, a good citizen; and third, a genius. These are the images of an ideal man and woman corresponding, respectively, to the education of heart, the education of norm, and the education of dominion. Therefore, when education is seen in terms of the image of the ideally-educated person, the education of heart may be called an education to develop a person of character; the education of norm may be called an education to develop a good citizen; and the education of dominion may be called an education to develop a genius.

A Person of Character

The image of the person ideally educated concerning heart is a person of character. Accordingly, the education of heart is an education necessary for guiding children so that they may experience and practice God’s love, and become persons of excellent character. Heart is the source of love, and it is the core of one’s personality. Those who are lacking in heart-regardless of how much knowledge they may have, or how strong their physical power may be, or how much political or economic power they may have-will never be persons of character. From a secular perspective, a person with a certain degree of virtue, knowledge, and health is often considered to be a person of character, but in Unification Thought, a person of character is one who has internalized God’s Heart and who practices love.

What, then, is an ideal person of character? A person of character is someone who has perfected his or her personality, having developed the faculties of intellect, emotion, and will in a balanced manner on the basis of heart (love). A person of character lives, above all, experiencing God’s Heart; therefore, such a person always makes efforts to practice true love towards all people and all things. A person of character, with a sincere heart of loyalty, always seeks to console God for His sorrow and pains; this person, in tears, will forgive God’s enemies with Divine love, even though he or she may feel public indignation against them. A person of character always practices vertical and horizontal values with a meek and humble mind, and with a warm heart. Since this person embodies both law and love, in practice he or she is most tender toward others and most strict toward himself or herself: love and law are united in his or her life. Love without law can make children weak and law without love may merely give them a sense of cold restriction. In sum, a person of character is able to practice God’s true love towards all people and all things.

A Good Citizen

The image of the person ideally educated concerning norm is a “good citizen,” a good citizen with a good personality. An education of norm may be given in schools, but its basis must be in the family. Since the family represents a miniature of the order of the universe, it can rightfully be said that the society, nation, and world are expansions of the system of order in a family. Therefore, a person who has received and internalized a good standard of education of norm in his or her family can easily observe norms in the greater society, nation, and world as well. As a result, that person becomes a good member of his or her family, a good member of their society, a good member of their nation, and a good member of the world. In other words, if one can become a good member of his or her family through an education of norm, one can naturally behave properly in conformity with the norms of their society, nation, and world.

Furthermore, a person who has lived as a good citizen on earth will naturally become a good spirit person in the spirit world as well. Leading a good life both on earth and in the spirit world, such a person can be called a good member of the cosmos. Cosmos here refers to the combina-tion of the physical world and the spirit world. Living as a good citizen in the family, society, world, and cosmos is the same as living as a good citizen in the Kingdom of Heaven.

A Genius

The image of the person ideally educated concerning dominion is a “genius,” which here means a person with rich and profound creativity. Originally everyone has the talent of genius, since human beings were originally created to become beings with creativity, inheriting God’s creativity. As a matter of fact, the Chinese characters for “genius” indicate a person with talent which is given by Heaven. Creativity is given to a person at birth as an endowed potential. Therefore, all people have the potential to become a genius once they manifest their creativity one hundred percent. In order to actualize such creativity, however, a proper education is necessary. The kind of education necessary for this purpose is an education of dominion.

As mentioned above, an education of dominion should be based on the foundation of both an education of heart and an education of norm. In other words, an education of dominion must be carried out as one component of a balanced education; only then can true creativity be fully manifested. If an education of heart and an education of norm are insufficient or lacking, one’s creativity can not be fully manifested. For instance, suppose there is a child with unusual musical potential who is trying to learn to play the piano. If the parents of that child are always quarreling with each other, or often strike or abuse the child, then the child will go to school with a wounded heart. In this case, when playing the piano, the child will not be able to move his or her hands smoothly, because of his or her disturbed emotions. Even though the child may have superior creative potential, the development of that creativity will be hindered due to the discord in his or her family environment.

Since human beings have been given individuality, each person’s creativity, likewise, has unique characteristics. Some people are endowed with musical creativity; others, with mathematical creativity; someone else may have political creativity, while others have business creativity. If the creativity one possesses is fully manifested, that person may become a musical genius, a mathematical genius, a political genius, or a business genius. This is to say, based upon one’s individuality, each person can become a unique genius.

Due to the fallen environment, however, people have become unable to manifest their God-given creativity to the fullest extent, and it has become very difficult for them to develop into geniuses. In fact, there may be only one person out of tens of thousands who can reach the level of a genius, while all the rest remain in mediocrity. That is the reality of an education of dominion in this fallen society.

Moreover, we should realize that cooperation from the spirit world is also involved in the education leading to one’s becoming a genius. When a well-balanced education is provided, on the basis of a God-centered family, many good spirits can provide spiritual assistance and, as a result, children’s God-given talents can develop rapidly.

IV. Traditional Theories of Education

In this section, I will introduce the main points of certain traditional theories of education. By comparing the Unification Theory of Education with these theories, it will be possible to more clearly understand the historical significance of the Unification Theory of Education.

Plato’s View of Education

According to Plato (427-347 BC), the human soul consists of three parts, namely, the “appetitive part,” the “spirited part,” and the “rational part.” The virtue required in the appetitive part is temperance; the virtue required in the spirited part is courage; and the virtue required in the rational part is wisdom. The virtue that manifests itself when these three virtues are harmonized is justice. There are three social classes in the nation corresponding to these three parts of the soul. The mass of citizens, including farmers, artisans, and tradesmen who form the lower class, correspond to the appetitive part of the soul. Public officials (guardians) form the middle class, corresponding to the spirited part of the soul. Finally, rulers form the upper class, corresponding to the rational part of the soul.

When those capable men who have gained knowledge of the “Idea of the Good” rule the nation, an ideal nation is realized. For Plato, the purpose of education is to bring people closer to the world of Ideas. Specifically, this aims at the education of the “philosopher-king” who is the educated ruler. Plato’s image of an ideal person was that of “one who loves wisdom” (a philosopher) and that of “one who is harmonized,” namely, a person whose mind and body are harmonized, possessing the four virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. The ultimate purpose of edu-cation would be to realize an ideal nation, where the Idea of the Good is embodied.

The Christian View of Education in the Middle Ages

Whereas in the age of ancient Greece, education served the goal of developing good people who would serve the society, in the Christian society of the Middle Ages, education served to cultivate people who would realize the Christian ideal. The image of the ideal person was that of a “religious person,” a person who would love and respect God, while loving his neighbors. With the purpose of cultivating such ideal persons, a strict education was given, particularly in monasteries. This was an education to attain a perfect spiritual life, with the virtues of purity, honest poverty, and submission. The purpose of this education was to cultivate people to become ideal Christians and to prepare them for life after death.

The View of Education During the Renaissance

In the age of the Renaissance, a human-centered world view, which valued human dignity, came into being, displacing the God-centered world view which had regarded obedience and abstinence as virtues. Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1515) was the main representative of this new, humanistic view of education. He asserted that the purpose of education is to teach people, who are originally free, to attain the complete development of their human nature and to acquire a culture rich in individuality. He emphasized the humanistic aspects of culture, such as literature, the fine arts, and science. Emphasis was also given to physical education, which had been neglected in the Middle Ages. The image of the ideal person in the Renaissance Age was an “all-round man of culture,” whose mind and body are harmoniously developed. Erasmus’ idea of the return to the original human nature was inherited by Johann A. Comenius and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Comenius’ View of Education

For Johann A. Comenius (1592-1670), the ultimate purpose of human life was to become united with God and obtain eternal bliss in the life after death, with life here on earth being the preparation for life after death.

For that purpose, everyone should (1) know all things, (2) become a person who can control things as well as oneself, and (3) become like the image of God. He advocated the necessity of three kinds of education: intellectual education, moral education, and religious education. To teach “all things to all men” was the theme of Comenius’ theory of education, which was called pansophia.¹

According to Comenius, the character to be achieved through education is naturally inherent in human beings, and it is the role of education to draw out this natural gift, namely, “nature.” Comenius said that originally parents are responsible for education, but should they become unable to do it, schools would become necessary to replace them.

The image of the ideal person, according to Comenius, was that of a “pansophist,” or a person who has learned all knowledge concerning God, nature, and human beings. The purpose of education is to raise practical Christians who have learned everything knowable, and to realize the peaceful unification of the world through Christianity.

Rousseau’s View of Education

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) in the Enlightenment Age wrote an educational novel entitled Émile, in which he said, “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil.” ² Thus, he insisted on educating children in a natural way. He asserted that since man possesses an inherent “natural goodness,” his “nature” should be developed as it exists originally. Education, as advocated by Rousseau, should aim to develop people naturally through eliminating the factors that obstruct the development of their natural gifts, such as indoctri-nation by the established system of culture and by moral and religious teachings. Yet, in reality, “natural man” in the state of nature would not be well-suited to the existing fallen society. Concerning this point, he said that in the ideal republican society, the individual as a “natural man” and the individual as a citizen of society would get along well. Thus, he also advocated the necessity for educating people so that they can become full-fledged members of society.

The image of the ideal person in Rousseau’s theory of education was that of a “natural man,” and the purpose of education, in his view, was to nurture this “natural man” and realize an ideal republican society, in which this “natural man” would become a citizen. Rousseau’s theory of education was inherited by Kant, Pestalozzi, Herbart, Dewey, and others.

Kant’s View of Education

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) said that “man is the only being who needs education” ³ and that “man can only become man by education,” ⁴ advocating the importance of education. Kant’s view of education was influenced by Rousseau.

According to Kant, the mission of education is to develop people’s natural gifts in a harmonious way, and to cultivate those who can act freely while following moral laws. Also, Kant asserted that education should not aim at adjusting to any particular society, but rather it should aim, more generally, at the perfection of humankind. Thus, he said, education must become cosmopolitan.

On the other hand, Kant recognized that there is in human nature a fundamental evil. According to him, evil comes into being when the moral law is subordinated to self-love. Therefore, Kant said that through inner conversion, one should come to place the moral law above self-love, and that duty so orders it. Respect for morality, trust in science and reverence for God characterize his view on education and on humankind. For Kant, the ideal image of a human being is that of a “good man,” and the purpose of education is to perfect one’s human nature as a cosmopolitan person, thereby establishing everlasting international peace.

Pestalozzi’s View of Education

Under the influence of Rousseau, Johann H. Pestalozzi (1741-1827) advocated an education in conformity with “nature” and sought to libe-rate human nature, the noble nature inherent in all people. He held that when people based themselves upon something simple and pure, they come to do good by intuitively understanding fundamental principles. He also held that education starts from maternal love in the family, and asserted that family education forms the basis of education.

Pestalozzi said that there are three fundamental forces forming human nature, namely, mental power, heart power, and technical power; these three, he held, correspond to mind, heart, and hand. According to him, an education of mind is an education of knowledge, an education of heart is a moral and religious education, and an education of hand is technical education (including physical education). The internal power that unites these powers is love. Love is the basis of heart power and the driving force of moral and religious education. Accordingly, he advocated that these three types of education can be harmoniously united, centering on moral and religious education.⁵

The image of the ideal person advocated by Pestalozzi was that of a person in whom the three fundamental powers are harmoniously developed-namely, a “whole man.” He advocated the education of the “whole man” centered on love and faith. The purpose of education was to cultivate human nature and build a moral and religious nation and society.

Froebel’s View of Education

Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852) followed Pestalozzi and further systematized Pestalozzi’s view of education. According to Froebel, nature and human beings are unified by God and move according to God’s law. Divine nature constitutes the essence of all things, and the mission of all things is to express, reveal, and develop such a nature. Therefore, people should manifest in their lives the divine nature inherent within them, and education should guide people in that direction. He wrote, “The free and spontaneous representation of the divine in man … is the ultimate aim and object of all education, as well as the ultimate destiny of man.” ⁶

Froebel especially emphasized the importance of the education of children and family education. Froebel’s basic position concerning education was that the place to develop children in a natural way is at home, where the parents are the teachers. Like Pestalozzi, he emphasized the role of the mother. He asserted that kindergarten is necessary as a supplement to family education and became the founder of the kindergarten.

The “natural man” with good nature, advocated by Rousseau was, for Pestalozzi, a “whole man” with noble human nature, and, for Froebel, the image of the ideal person was that of a “whole man with a divine nature.”

Herbart’s View of Education

Johann F. Herbart (1775-1841) attempted to systematize pedagogy as a science. In doing so, he incorporated ethics and psychology into pedagogy, as its basis, whereby he established ethics as the aim of education, and psychology as the means of education.

First, following Kant, Herbart considered a “good man” to be the image of an ideal person; and the “cultivation of a moral character” as the goal of education. Next, he outlined the method of education, proposing that what forms the foundation of human spiritual life are the presentations in one’s mind; therefore, by cultivating one’s circle of thought, or one’s collection of presentations, a person’s moral character can be cultivated. In other words, he advocated building moral character through teaching knowledge.

Herbart pointed out the importance of instruction in the formation of representations, and explained the process of instruction. According to the Herbartian school, which later revised Herbart’s theory, the process of instruction consists of five stages: (1) prepare the students to be ready for the new lesson, (2) present the new lesson, (3) associate the new lesson with what was studied earlier, (4) use examples to illustrate the lesson’s major points, and (5) test students to ensure they had learned the new lesson.

Dewey’s View of Education

In the late nineteenth century, a pragmatic view of life, which placed behavior at the center of human life, was born in the United States. John Dewey (1859-1952) advocated instrumentalism, asserting that intellect is a tool useful for behavior and that thinking develops in the process of human efforts to control the environment.

Stating that “education is all one with growing; it has no end beyond itself,”⁷ Dewey argued that no sense of purpose should be fixed in advance for education, but that instead, education should be regarded as growth. According to him, “education consists primarily in transmission through communication,” ⁸ and “education is a constant reorganizing or reconstructing of experience.” ⁹ This transmission should be achieved through the medium of the environment rather than directly from adults (teachers) to children. Through such an education, society develops. What Dewey intended to achieve was a kind of practical, technical education aimed at the reconstruction of society. The image of the ideal person in Dewey’s view of education was that of an “active man.”

Communist View of Education

Marx and Lenin sharply criticized the kind of education conducted in capitalist society. According to Marx, in capitalist society educational policies are intended to keep people in ignorance.¹⁰ Teachers are product-ive laborers who belabor children’s heads and work to enrich the school proprietor.¹¹ According to Lenin, capitalist education is an “instrument of the class rule of the bourgeoisie,”¹² the goal of which is to raise “docile and efficient servants of the bourgeoisie” and “slaves and tools of capital.”¹³

In contrast to the education in a capitalist society, in socialist society, Lenin asserted, “The schools must become an instrument of the dicta-torship of the proletariat.”¹⁴ He also said that teachers must become the soldiers who instill the spirit of Communism into the masses of workers.¹⁵

The purpose of a Communist education was stated in the preamble of the “Fundamentals of National Education Act” (1973) of the Soviet Union: “The objective of national education in the U.S.S.R. is to raise a highly-cultivated, all-round, fully developed, and active architect of Communist society who has been raised under Marxist-Leninist thought, with respect for Soviet law and the socialist order, and with Communistic attitude toward labor.”¹⁶ In other words, the purpose of Communist education is to raise people dedicated to the construction of a Communist society. The image of the ideal person is the “all-round, fully developed human being.” ¹⁷

Then, what are the contents of a Communist education? First, it attaches importance to general technical education (or “polytechnism”), as opposed to individual technical education. It then asserts that general technical education should be carried out in connection with labor. Furthermore, it asserts that, in a socialist society, there are no conflicts of interest between individuals and groups, and that there is no individual apart from a group, calling for the necessity of collective education. The general technical education was systematized by N. K. Krupskaya (1869-1939), and collective education was systematized by A. S. Makarenko (1888-1939).

Democratic View of Education

The idea of education in democracy is based on democratic thought. Dewey’s view of education played a major role throughout the first half of the twentieth century. I will quote here from the “Report of the United States Education Mission to Japan”¹⁸ as to what represents the democratic idea for education after World War II. The report begins with the following definition of democracy:

Democracy is not a cult, but a convenient means through which the emancipated energies of men may be allowed to display themselves in utmost variety. Democracy is best conceived not as a remote goal, however radiant, but as the pervasive spirit of every present freedom. Responsibility is of the essence of this freedom. Duties keep rights from canceling each other out. The test of equal treatment is the taproot of democracy, whether it be of rights to be shared or of duties to be shouldered.¹⁹

The report then describes the nature of democratic education, as follows:

A system of education for life in a democracy will rest upon the recognition of the worth and dignity of the individual. It will be so organized as to provide educational opportunity in accordance with the abilities and aptitudes of each person. Through content and methods of instruction it will foster freedom of inquiry, and training in the ability to analyze critically. It will encourage a wide discussion of factual information within the competence of students at different stages of their development. These ends can not be promoted if the work of the school is limited to prescribed courses of study and to a single approved textbook in each subject. The success of education in a democracy can not be measured in terms of uniformity and standardi-zation. Education should prepare the individual to become a responsi-ble and cooperating member of society.²⁰

The ideal of democratic education is to nurture democratic citizens, who, while observing the principles of democracy, such as the sovereignty of the people, majority rule, and equality of rights, will respect the rights of others and will fulfill their own responsibility, and upon that basis will claim their own rights and will make effort to perfect their own personality.

The purpose of democratic education, therefore, is the perfection of character and the nurturing of responsible members of society. Its image of the ideal person is that of a “person of respectable individuality.”

V. An Appraisal of Traditional Theories of Education
from the Perspective of Unification Thought

Let us now briefly appraise these traditional theories of education from the standpoint of Unification Thought.

For Plato, the image of the ideal person is that of a philosopher who has recognized the “Idea of the Good.” Plato thought that if such a philosopher were to govern the state, an ideal state would come about. In the Age of ancient Greece, however, no such philosopher ever emerged who could govern the state, and the Idea of the Good was not realized in the city-state (polis). Moreover, after the coming of the Age of Hellenism, the Idea of the Good collapsed together with the city-states. That was because the Idea of the Good was too ambiguous. Unless God’s purpose for creating the universe and humankind is well clarified, the standard of goodness will remain ambiguous, and therefore, the Idea of the Good can not be actualized.

Christianity in the Middle Ages advocated a kind of education that could raise people to love God and their neighbors. Yet, that love was “agape,” that is, the sacrificial love that was displayed in Jesus’ crucifixion. Such questions as to why God’s love must be such a sacrificial love, and why human beings must love one another were not clarified. Accordingly, it was difficult for such a Christian view of education to guide people of the modern period, who were more awakened to actual human nature.

Education in the Renaissance period can be highly esteemed in that it liberated human nature, which had been oppressed; but from the mid-sixteenth century on, it gradually became formalized into a mere study of the classics. It also leaned toward human-centeredness and gradually lost its religious morality.

Comenius said that the role of education was to draw out the natural gift (nature) inherent in every person. It is not clear, however, what that gift was. There is also a problem with his concept of pansophia, according to which the acquisition of true knowledge would lead to virtue and faith. From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, true intellectual education can be established only on the basis of being educated about heart and norm. Still, the three kinds of education advocated by Comenius have something in common with the education of heart, the education of norm, and the education of dominion in the Unification Theory of Education.

Rousseau also advocated raising people in a natural way, but his concept of “nature” within the individual was too ambiguous. Furthermore, there is a problem in his definition of human nature as unconditionally good. He advocated bringing up children in a natural way, but without the education of heart and the education of norm centered on God’s love (Heart), it is impossible to raise children as they naturally are and to lead them to become human beings as originally intended.

Kant attached importance to moral education. But his moral education had no solid foundation because God, who should be the foundation of morality, was conceived by him as an entity that is merely requested to exist, but of whose actual existence Kant himself was uncertain. Also, Kant dealt with morality only as a norm for individuals, but that is insufficient. Ethics, which is the norm for mutual relationships among human beings, is just as important as morality.

Pestalozzi asserted that three kinds of education, namely, an education of knowledge, a moral and religious education, and a technical education, should be unified through love. This assertion resembles the idea in Unification Thought of the education of norm and the education of dominion based on the education of heart. (Pestalozzi’s education of knowledge and technical education correspond to the education of dominion in Unification Thought, and his moral and religious education corresponds to the education of norm in Unification Thought.) His idea for education with an emphasis on the “whole man” and his assertion that family education should be the foundation of education are also in accord with the Unification Theory of Education. Nevertheless, the point that the purpose of education is the fulfillment of the three great blessings was not clarified in his theory of education. Also, his understanding of God, who is the foundation for moral-religious education, was not sufficient. For these reasons, Pestalozzi’s theory of education never became solidly established.

A similar comment can be made about Froebel, who inherited Pestalozzi’s theory of education. For Froebel, the “whole man with a divine nature” was the image of the ideal person. This is in perfect accord with the viewpoint of the Unification Theory of Education, which says that the essence of education is to teach children to grow to resemble God.

Herbart considered representations and their mutual relationships to be the origin of all spiritual activities, such as emotion and will, and asserted that moral character can be built by cultivating a circle of thought. From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, however, it is not by cultivating one’s thinking that morality is actualized. Morality can be actualized when people pursue the value of goodness and observe proper norms, centering on heart (love).

Dewey did not recognize any purpose in education, but emphasized only growth and progress. Emphasis on growth and progress, however, without clarifying purpose, can not solve human alienation and social problems. In fact, today, as science and civilization develop, many social ills have emerged in societies in the United States of America where Dewey’s method of education has been practiced. Wholesome persons and societies can not be formed through the method of practical technical education proposed by Dewey, unless such education is based on an education of heart and an education of norm.

Marxism-Leninism regarded capitalist education as the “bourgeoisie’s tool for class rule” and advocated Communist education as the “pro-letariat’s tool for dictatorship.” That is simply a view of education from the perspective of regarding human society in terms of class struggle. Since such Communist theories as dialectical and historical materialism have been found erroneous, the Communist view of education based on these theories is likewise wrong. Marxism-Leninism asserted that the aim of education was to raise an “all-round, fully developed person,” but this did not refer to the personality of an individual whose faculties of intellect, emotion, and will are developed in a well-balanced manner; instead, it referred simply to a laborer with fully developed skills, so that he or she can engage in any kind of labor. Moreover, Marxism-Leninism insisted on general technical education, but since it placed emphasis on labor, this general technical education was no more than education in working skills. Moreover, collective education has come to oppress the dignity of human individuality and freedom.

Finally, a democratic education is based on the value and dignity of the individual. Yet, too much emphasis on the rights of the individual has given rise to a tendency toward individualism and egoism. Also, since it upholds human nature on the basis of humanism, its views on values have become relativistic. As a result, social disorder has become unavoidable. Only when an education of heart and an education of norm, based on God ’s absolute love, are practiced, can the value and dignity of the individual be firmly established, and social harmony and order maintained.