Claim. SMM argues that the term ‘true parents’ does not appear in the Bible because Jesus himself was treated as a stepson and lacked true parents — the term is therefore distinctive Unification Church terminology that names a heavenly Principle Jesus could not embody.
Elaboration. In Section 2. We Should Fully Understand the Words “True Parents” SMM stakes a deliberately provocative position: ‘Did Jesus have True Parents?… For his entire life Jesus grew up and was treated as a stepson. This is why the Bible does not contain the words true parents.’ The absence of the phrase in Scripture is not evidence against the doctrine — it is evidence for it, because Jesus’ tragic lack of protective true parents is precisely what UC theology aims to restore.
SMM is careful to disclaim invention: ‘They are not something I invented. They are words discovered to be part of the heavenly Principle.’ The terminology is presented as theological discovery, not innovation — a stance evangelical critics will obviously contest, since ‘discovery of biblical truths absent from the Bible’ sits uncomfortably with sola scriptura.
The definition of ‘true children’ that follows is severe: ‘True children should be able to offer their lives and everything they have for the sake of God’s Son and should be grateful even if they themselves end up in hell.’ This sets the standard of indemnity for children of True Parents — willingness to be damned for the Son’s sake is the inversion of the protective failure of Jesus’ earthly parents.
The passage also includes a striking remark about ease of access: members who learn ‘True Parents’ through Principle lectures got the conclusion ‘without suffering,’ whereas SMM ‘could utter the word Father only after having gone through life-threatening suffering.’ The implicit complaint — that easy acceptance produces shallow joy — frames a recurring CSG theme about second-generation and convert formation. Worth a future atomic on the asymmetry of cost between founder and follower.