Easter Thoughts

He is risen!
... He is risen indeed!

While I've spent the last week taking care of my family and visiting with extended family, many thoughts have been running through my head.  Even though Easter is finished now, I'd like to share these thoughts with you.

Some people (like the WMSCOG) will say that Christians must not celebrate "Easter" because it is based on a pagan custom.  Even the name "Easter" is pagan, they say.  I have a couple things to say in response to that.

*  First, Christians are celebrating the resurrection of Jesus, not worshipping an ancient pagan god (or goddess).  Yes, "Resurrection Day" would be a much better name, but in our language today, that is what "Easter" means.  As far as I can find through research, only English and German use a form of the word "Easter" for Resurrection Day.  Most other languages use a form of the word "Passover" for the same holiday.

*  "Easter" was the name of the month that contained the Passover and Resurrection Day holidays.  And that month was apparently named after a goddess, Eostra.  There is only one source for this information, and that's from the 8th century.  You can read about it here.  Many of our months of the year and days of the week (at least in English) are based on mythology.  Does using those names means we are secretly worshipping pagan gods?  If I go to a weekly Bible study on Fridays, am I inadvertently worshipping the goddess of love Freyja (Venus)?  If you go to church on Tuesday nights (like the WMSCOG), are you actually worshipping the god of war Teiwaz (Mars)?  No, of course not.  Likewise, just because the day we remember the Resurrection is sometimes called Easter, that doesn't mean we are worshipping the goddess Eostra (or Ishtar, or Ashtoreth).

*  Meanings of words change as a language develops.  Words that formerly meant one thing now mean another.  Must we rigidly hold on to the old meaning, when the new meaning is clear and prevalent?  Would you insist on saying your friend looks "gay" meaning "merry and lively," when our current society would interpret it as "homosexual"?  No, you'd have a serious misunderstanding, even though the alternate meanings of "gay" are recent enough to still be in the dictionary.  Look up "Easter" in the dictionary--the only meanings listed are about the remembrance of the Resurrection.  That is the meaning of the word now, despite where it may have come from.

*  About the Easter bunny, you can read more about the Easter bunny here.  I consider the Easter bunny similar to Santa Claus--a distraction from the true meaning and purpose of the holiday.  Here's a funny video to make that point: Easter Linebacker.  (It's less than 3 minutes long.  Hope you like it!)

It's interesting to note...  The WMSCOG's keeps the Day of Firstfruits (celebrating the Resurrection) on the same day as the mainstream Christian churches celebrate Easter.  They don't call it Easter, but they celebrate the Resurrection on the same day, and have since 2003 (records are available on their website, watv.org).

In other words, the WMSCOG does celebrate Easter.  They call it by a different name, but it's the same day and the same purpose, the remembrance of the Resurrection of Jesus.

Matthew 28:6-7

"He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.  Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead...."

Who was Isaac really?

The more I learn of the WMSCOG's interpretations of the Bible, the more I see how deep the differences are compared to mainstream Christianity.  I just finished reading (again) Ahnsahnghong's book, The Mystery of God and the Spring of the Water of Life.

Noticed what he said on page 171 (Chapter 12), regarding Genesis 18:14, in which the Lord appeared to Abraham:

Then Abraham made some bread and took a tender calf, and he brought some curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set them before God, who ate and said: "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son" (Gen. 18:10).  By these words God meant that He would be born as Isaac.  [emphasis mine]

And then on page 185 (Chapter 12), regarding Genesis 18:1-10, Galatians 3:16, and John 8:56, he says:

The above passages show that Abraham, who firmly believed in God's promise that He would return to him at the appointed time and be born as his [Abraham's] son through the body of Sarah, rejoiced at the thought of seeing the birth of Isaac, and he saw it and was glad.  [emphasis mine]

So we see that Ahnsahnghong believed that Isaac was God born in the flesh through Sarah.

Now think about this... How could it be possible for Isaac to be God incarnate?

Isaac was afraid and lied, saying Rebekah was his sister instead of his wife (Genesis 26).
Isaac was deceived by his son Jacob (Genesis 27--see how distressed he is at being tricked in verse 33). 

Is God ever afraid?  Does God ever lie?  Can anyone deceive God?  No.

When God said that He would return in a year and Sarah would have a son, He did not mean that He (God) would be that son.

Jesus said, in John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."  He did not mean "my day" was "the day of Isaac's birth."  

Jesus meant that Abraham rejoiced at the thought of God's promise being fulfilled, that all people on earth would be blessed through him (Gen. 12:2-3).  "My day" refers to the time of Jesus, for all people on earth are blessed because of Him.

Ahnsahnghong was mistaken.  Isaac was not God.
God does not make mistakes.  Ahnsahnghong was not God either.

Financial Accountability

It tax season here in the United States.  Time to add up all of my family's income and expenses for the last year and see how much is due to the government in taxes... which leads me to think about financial matters.

My husband and I own stock in several companies.  Our investment in them is very small, yet every year they faithfully send us their financial statements so we can see how they use their money--their income and expenses, assets and liabilities, and so forth.  They also invite us to annual meetings where we can vote on different issues.  Would it be wise to invest in a company that did not tell what they did with that money?

There are several charities that we contribute to regularly.  They all let us know (either by mail or online) how they spend their money.  They have easy to read graphs that let me know how much of my gift is be used for ministry, how much for administration, and how much for fundraising.  I can also see their detailed financial statements, and I noticed one of them even has a link to their actual tax form.  Would it be wise to contribute money to a charitable group that did not tell me how they used that money?

Most of my giving goes to my home church as tithes and offerings.  Once a year my church has a business meeting that all members are requested to attend (and friends of the church are welcome too, even if they are not registered, voting members).  At the annual business meeting we discuss and vote on issues (like new deacons and building projects) and we examine the church's financial statements.  We get to see how the church has used all the money we've given--salaries, utilities, ministries, mortgage payments, etc.  Would it be wise to give tithes and offerings to a church that would not share how they spent the money?

These examples all show how upright organizations are not afraid to share their financial details with those who invest, or contribute, their money.  An honest organization will welcome such a chance to be accountable so there would be no question of wrong-doing.

Likewise, anyone who gives a significant amount of money to an organization (either as a gift or investment) and finds out how that money is really spent is WISE!  To trust an organization with poor financial accountability is to act foolishly.

Why do we often hesitate to give money to the beggar on the street corner?  Because there is no way we can hold him accountable.  Will he spend that gift on food or on drugs, how do we know?  Is he really homeless and needy, or just acting to get money, how do we know?  It's hard to know in that case.

That's just a matter of a few dollars.  What about when you when you contribute a significant amount of your income--your tithe, 10%, to your church?  How do you know it's being used properly?  You must have a church that keeps itself accountable.

Is the World Mission Society Church of God accountable to its members about how it uses their money?  Do they share financial statements with their members?  Do they hold business meetings so their members have a voting voice in decisions of the congragation and how their money is spent?

Those are good questions to ask about ANY church.
I don't know the answers to those questions regarding the WMSCOG, but I do know this:
If you are a WMSCOG member reading here, and the answers are NO, then you should find out why.