I was approached by two folks from the WMSCOG when exiting Buona Vista MRT and requested to do a survey. Upon listening to them further, I realized they were proponents of “God the Mother” theology. I had a heated debate, but stormed off when it was going nowhere.
It wasn’t something I am familiar with. Upon googling, I found their beliefs to be deeply alarming and from here I aim to address the so-called biblical support for their beliefs.
BASIS FOR “GOD THE MOTHER”
From my discussion with them, it seems that foundational to their beliefs is their interpretation of Genesis 1:26-27 (I will use the NIV since this is what WMSCOG use):
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
(1) Genesis 1:26 uses a plural form “Let us” when God creates mankind
(2) The plural form suggests that there are “two images” of God – expressed in male and female images of God respectively
(3) There must therefore be both “God the Mother” and “God the Father” since there are two images being created.
Let’s address these major points.
THE PLURAL “US”
There is no doubt that Genesis 1:26 uses a plural 1st person pronoun. The Hebrew term being used in Genesis 1:26 is נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה (na·‘ă·śeh). Many times Israel speak like this as a congregation. E.g. “The people all responded together, "We will do (na·‘ă·śeh) everything the LORD has said." So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD.” (Exodus 19:8)
However, there are no problems within Hebrew theology to use a plural pronoun in Genesis 1:26 and see humans created in a singular image of God as opposed to WMSCOG arguments for two images.
To address this – there is some confusion as to what WMSCOG actually believes. Do they believe in two gods – “God the Mother” and “God the Father” (i.e. a bitheism) or do they believe in one god with two beings “God the Mother” and “God the Father” similar to an orthodox Christian belief in the Trinity?
It will be demonstrated here that regardless of which spectrum the WMSCOG decides to stand – their beliefs fall flat against Scripture.
The Bitheism Argument
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
The Israelite Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 is foundational to all of Israelite belief in the one-ness of God. The New Testament, also affirms the Shema as quoted in James 2:19, albeit negatively: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”
The point with this simple survey of passages is that if WMSCOG argues for a bitheism (which given the benefit of doubt is unclear) – they believe in something that even the demons do not.
Nevertheless, if God is one, Gen 1:26 must be an image of the one God expressed in two genders. Neither of the following alternatives hold:
• “Two genders from two images of one God” - The Hebrew does not allow for a duality of images or likenesses. Numbers 33:52, where a plural form of “images” occurs uses a different Hebrew term “… drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places.” The contrast between Gen 1:26 and Num 33:52 is clear – one is a singular image, and the other a plurality of images.
• “Two genders from two images of two gods” – two gods, as we have seen will contradict the Shema
• “Two genders from one God with two images” – this nuance is a bit hard to address but does beg the question if what the WMSCOG believes is an addition to the Trinity, i.e. a Quadrinity? After all, God the Father in mainline Christianity is part of the Trinity, and thus if the WMSCOG believes an equivalent exists in a different gender, surely that must make “God the Mother” an additional person to the Trinity. This is the subject of the second argument.
“God the Mother” as an additional person to the Trinity
It has been expressed earlier that the bitheism argument simply does not test the stand of Scripture. Since the WMSCOG argues for an equivalence of “God the Mother” to “God the Father” – it needs to be stated from the outset that “God the Father” finds its roots in the Old Testament but is more explicit in the New Testament. The Lord’s Prayer is where we find God addressed as “Our Father in heaven.”
The significance for this should not be diminished as the Lord’s Prayer stands in stark contrast to how the Jews pray.
If this is the argument, we find “God the Mother” absent from significant Trinitarian passages. All members of the Trinity are present for example in the Great Commission of Matthew 28 but “God the Mother” is not. Another great example is the High Priestly Prayer where Jesus (a member prays to the Trinity) prays to the Father (another member of the Trinity) about the coming of the Helper (another member of the Trinity) . An additional member to the Trinity is not mentioned.
More significant is how in the whole book of John, Jesus never mentions a Mother. Much of Jesus’ arguments with the Pharisees in John rest on his co-eternality with the Father. The only mother mentioned is a human one.
The Plurality of “Us” in Genesis 1:26
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” – John 1:1-3
John 1:1 leaves us in no doubt the Word was with God in the beginning and not only that, a participant in the whole Creation process. A better argument for the plurality of Gen 1:26 would be the Word.
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” – John 1:14
John 1:14 on the other hand leaves us in no doubt who the Word is. It is none other than Jesus Christ, the Word who became flesh.
At the same time, Jesus’ identity as a participant in Creation does not contradict the one-ness of God. It is a basic Trinitarian understanding that can be easily expressed elsewhere. In the same book of John, Jesus' emphatically declares that He and the Father are one - a deliberate reference to the Shema.
Still others think that it is possible for the "us", in Genesis 1:26 refers to the majestic plural, God addressing his heavenly court and is usually the traditional reading favoured by Jewish folks who do not concede the Trinity. Many Christians also hold this belief. Regardless of the camp you are in, what it cannot be is the use of this to justify "God the Mother".
Other WMSCOG issues
The WMSCOG also has a hostile attitude towards other Christians’ display of Crosses, the non-practice of the Sabbath as well as the Celebration of Christmas.
These are minor issues but the WMSCOG believes this adds to their credibility as the bastion of truth vis-à-vis other churches or Christians. It’s insistence of observing the Israelite feasts is also another mind-boggling adherence.
These beliefs are strange in light of the New Testament.
On other Christians’ celebration of Christmas
“One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.” (Romans 14:5-6)
No doubt, the original context of Romans 14 is the Jewish Christians observance of the Sabbath. Yet the principle could be easily applied to any Christian who honors Christmas as a time to remember the Lord’s birth.
Catholics and Christians disagree on fundamental points of salvation and praying to Mary. Yet, no right Christian would take umbrage at Catholics choices to celebrate Ash Wednesday or the Ascension to say that their understanding of Scripture is better. Some Christians observe Maundy Thursday and some do not. The WMSCOG treatment of other Christians who observe Christmas as people who are against God are strange in light of Romans 14:5-6.
On the Celebration of the Israelite Feasts and Sabbath
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17)
WMSCOG judges other Christians’ for not observing the Sabbath or celebrating the Israelite religious feasts. That they do so in light of Colossians 2:16-17 shows that they do not understand that the Israelite Sabbath and Israelite festivals point to Christ. Jesus Christ is our true Sabbath and our true Passover. The insistence of worshipping the shadows as oppose to the reality found in Christ is a deliberate attempt to fool others back into the Old Covenant whose realities are already fulfilled in Christ.
The most problematic of WMSCOG beliefs: God the Mother, Jang Gil-ja
I have chosen to address this point last because this point is never explicitly stated on WMSCOG websites. However, it is testified by those who eventually leave the WMSCOG."Colon said church leaders don't tell members, until they seem fully committed, that their "God the Mother" is actually a living South Korean woman in her 70s, known by multiple names and various spiritual titles, who is apparently the widow of the deceased founder, Ahnsahnghong." (quote from Wikipedia)
“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook or tie down its tongue with a rope?” (Job 41:1)
In the book of Job, God describes Himself in powerful terms that completely floors Job. Can you pull in a Leviathan? God does not share His glory with man. Can Jang Gil-ja pull in a Leviathan? Do the winds and the seas obey her?
If you are a WMSCOG member and you have read thus far, I strongly urge you to leave your church and stop perpetrating your beliefs.
Comments