This is an open letter to the self-styled 'Church of God', a gathering of people from the World Mission Society Church of God, and the students of Elohim Academy.
Dearest friends,
I had a good opportunity to sit and speak to two of your men who had been diligently walking around Jaya Mall. We talked for a good hour or so, and in that time, I learnt many things about what your 'church' is all about.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the following two points are what defines your 'church':
1. Jesus' second coming is in the person of Ang Sahng-hong, a South Korean.
2. The existence of a being call God the Mother.
Let us begin with the person of Jesus, for that is where we both hold common ground. You have been told that David is a prophecy of Jesus, and it was necessary for Jesus to emulate David's life, specifically 1Kings 2:11, which says that 'And the time that David reigned over Israel was forty years'. Using this as basis for your argument, you say that Jesus failed his mission because he died before he could reign for 40 years, and so returned in the person of Ang Sahng-hong, who died early 1985.
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is preparing his disciples for the time when he is no longer with them. He tells them in Mark 13:3-37 about what they should expect in that time: wars, famines, earthquakes, they will be tortured, and that many will come claiming bearing Jesus' name saying 'I am he!'. He also warns his disciples not to believe those who say 'Here is the Christ' or 'Look! There he is!' (v21-23). Jesus then goes on to tell his disciples , in v24-27, how he would be coming back - in clouds of great power and glory. Revelation 22:3-5 also tells us that when Jesus, the Lamb returns, he will reign forever.
You have been told that Ang is Jesus' second coming. Jesus says to be careful of those who come saying 'I am Jesus', and not to believe those who say 'Here is the Christ'. Ang has not come in clouds of great power and glory for the whole world to see. He came and died, and nobody knew. To top it off, Ang himself never claimed to be Jesus. This claim comes from a woman by the name of Jang Gil-ja, who after the death of Ang, proclaimed him to be Jesus, and herself to be God the Mother. Which bring us to our next point.
The two men I spoke to used Galatians 4:21-31 as proof text that the Bible talks about God the Mother. They talked about how the Jerusalem above is our mother, and because this 'Jerusalem' is 'above', therefore 'she' must be God. You were also telling me that in Revelation 22:17 the Bride mentioned there is God the Mother. The tracts that you handed out also used the following logic:
Premise 1: Everything that has a father has a mother
Premise 2: Jesus called God his father
Conclusion: There has to be God the Mother.
Let's start with Galatians.
Now Galatians is a letter written by Paul to a group of churches in Galatia. He was scolding them for so quickly leaving behind the teachings of Jesus to go back to following the Jewish law. Paul in Galatians 3 is reminding them that they cannot, no matter how hard they try, earn their way back to God. Galatians 4 is a continuation of Paul's appeal to them to stop their foolishness. He is reminding them that by trusting in Jesus to have died for their sins, they are now part of the children of promise (4:28), for their allegorical mother is a free mother (v26), and so they should not go back to being slaves to working for their salvation (v30-31). Given the context, I do not see how this text can be used to prove God the Mother.
In Revelation 22:17, who is the Bride? To answer that, you have to read from Revelation 21. She is the new Jerusalem (v2), who is the wife of the Lamb (v9). Who is the Lamb? This Lamb is introduced in Revelation 5:6, and is a direct reference to John 1:29, which is talking about Jesus, saying, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" Now if the Bride is supposed to be the Son's Mother, and Jesus is the Son, then are we talking about incest at a cosmic level?
The logic presented in your tract is also flawed. God and Creation, which one of these two sets the definition? Take for example: I have an abusive and hateful Father. Is therefore God the Father hateful and abusive? Or should God the Father be the definition of what real fatherhood is all about, and by measurement of that standard, my father is judged to have failed?
The very own person you were told to be Jesus himself denounced the teaching of God the Mother, and denounced the person who first introduced the teaching, Um Sooin in his book Problems with the New Jerusalem, the Bride and Women's Veils. He called her a 'false prophet' who 'attempted to gain power'.
Dearest friends,
You have seen the evidence pile up against the teachings of your 'church'. You have been working very hard to earn your place before God. I invite you to look to the Lord of the Sabbath, who promises to give you rest from the hard and endless work of trying to earn your place in heaven. Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath invites you to rest and to trust only in the work that he has done in your place, at the Cross.
If you continue to stay with this 'church', you will continue to be part of a people who tell lies about who Jesus really is, and who God really is. When God told the Israelites 'You shall not take the name of God in vain', he meant that you cannot misuse God's name. Saying something about God that is not true, and claiming that God said it, is using God's name in vain. And there is only one outcome for those who will not stop dragging God's name into the mud - God's rightful anger remains on you.
For your sake, I beg you to think again about what you are doing.
Your Friend,
Shimron
