Am curious if there is a significant trend among Plain/conservative Anabaptists to refer to Easter as Resurrection Day? How is it in your congregations/conferences?
I grew up hearing it both ways (though probably more as "Easter"), but was prompted to put a little more thought into it after I was chewed on pretty good by a rather zealously brother after I preached a message on the Resurrection in his congregation last year, I having made a few unthinking and passing references to "Easter"... within the course of the message. His primary thrust was his perception of the pagan origins of the name and subsequent (shudder, Jay ) Catholic promotion thereof.
My husband grew up conservative Mennonite- Southeastern- and they called it Easter.
I grew up Methodist which when I was a teen became United Methodist- and we called it Easter.
When we were part of a home church that was the first I heard folks call it Resurrection Day vs Easter and even made a big deal of it.
The name “Easter” doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the resurrection. There are various accounts of where it came from, and I suspect we just don’t know with any certainty.
Sunday, “the Lord’s Day,” is very prominent in the earliest texts after the New Testament. I don't see that for Easter.
The earliest Christian references I see call it Pascha — Passover — or simply “the feast.” Eusebius preserves an account from Irenaeus describing the disagreement between Polycarp and Anicetus. If you trust his retelling, we can see that Christians were already celebrating an annual Pascha and disagreeing about when to observe it by about 150 AD.
One of the earliest explicit descriptions we have is around 190 AD, in Polycrates of Ephesus, who describes Christians observing Pascha on the fourteenth day.
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
I understand that a point can be made from a historical point of view, but I don't think it is something that should be blown up into a huge deal now, in our time and societal setting. I would say that anyone who has ever been to an Easter service knows pretty well what it is about. I think that if I wanted to be picky about something, I might focus on the origins of 'baby dedications'. But no, I'm not interested in arguing about that one, either, because those who want to do it are going to go on doing it, no matter what I may say.
Heirbyadoption wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2026 2:21 pm
Am curious if there is a significant trend among Plain/conservative Anabaptists to refer to Easter as Resurrection Day? How is it in your congregations/conferences?
I grew up hearing it both ways (though probably more as "Easter"), but was prompted to put a little more thought into it after I was chewed on pretty good by a rather zealously brother after I preached a message on the Resurrection in his congregation last year, I having made a few unthinking and passing references to "Easter"... within the course of the message. His primary thrust was his perception of the pagan origins of the name and subsequent (shudder, Jay ) Catholic promotion thereof.
This was certainly a trend in the conservative homeschooling / house churching movement of the 1990s, based on a (in my opinion, faulty) teaching that "Easter" is actually some kind of pagan ritual in service to a false god.
Note that in Latin and in Slavic / Eastern languages the holiday is generally called "Pascha" or some similar transliterated term.
Wikipedia wrote:In the 8th century AD, Anglo-Saxon monk and scholar Bede recorded in his The Reckoning of Time that Ēosturmōnaþ (Old English for 'Month of Ēostre', translated in Bede's time as "Paschal month") was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says "was once called after a goddess of theirs named Ēostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month".
"Easter" is just an English word that essentially means "April", much like how in Swedish they still call Christmas jul.
Heirbyadoption wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2026 2:21 pm
Am curious if there is a significant trend among Plain/conservative Anabaptists to refer to Easter as Resurrection Day? How is it in your congregations/conferences?
I grew up hearing it both ways (though probably more as "Easter"), but was prompted to put a little more thought into it after I was chewed on pretty good by a rather zealously brother after I preached a message on the Resurrection in his congregation last year, I having made a few unthinking and passing references to "Easter"... within the course of the message. His primary thrust was his perception of the pagan origins of the name and subsequent (shudder, Jay ) Catholic promotion thereof.
This was certainly a trend in the conservative homeschooling / house churching movement of the 1990s, based on a (in my opinion, faulty) teaching that "Easter" is actually some kind of pagan ritual in service to a false god.
Note that in Latin and in Slavic / Eastern languages the holiday is generally called "Pascha" or some similar transliterated term.
Wikipedia wrote:In the 8th century AD, Anglo-Saxon monk and scholar Bede recorded in his The Reckoning of Time that Ēosturmōnaþ (Old English for 'Month of Ēostre', translated in Bede's time as "Paschal month") was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says "was once called after a goddess of theirs named Ēostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month".
"Easter" is just an English word that essentially means "April", much like how in Swedish they still call Christmas jul.
Also for Portuguese: Pascoa. (I don't have the Portuguese keyboard set up on my computer, so I'll just note here that the stress or accent, is on the first syllable.) And Christmas is Natal, which literally means 'birth'. (So don't blame the Catholics for the words used in English....)
I think folks worry about language usage too much. While there are times choice of a word or phrase can be important there is nothing wrong with recognizing language and terms evolve over time. If we agree on meaning, then we communicate. We do not believe in “magic” words. That English speaking countries use the term Easter does not give it, or take away, meaning. And while I can understand that someone may be trying to emphasize a point by using a certain new term, it does not really have that effect until or unless widely adopted.
In our family there is not even universal acknowledgment of what DAY the holiday falls on. I am of the view holidays are about remembrance and/or celebration. If you remember and honor what it IS that you need to honor and remember, you have succeeded despite whatever name you use for it.
Neto wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2026 6:44 pm
I understand that a point can be made from a historical point of view, but I don't think it is something that should be blown up into a huge deal now, in our time and societal setting. I would say that anyone who has ever been to an Easter service knows pretty well what it is about. I think that if I wanted to be picky about something, I might focus on the origins of 'baby dedications'. But no, I'm not interested in arguing about that one, either, because those who want to do it are going to go on doing it, no matter what I may say.
Seems like all the arguments take the focus away from just celebrating the resurrection. And we should celebrate that!
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Heirbyadoption wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2026 2:21 pm
Am curious if there is a significant trend among Plain/conservative Anabaptists to refer to Easter as Resurrection Day? How is it in your congregations/conferences?
I grew up hearing it both ways (though probably more as "Easter"), but was prompted to put a little more thought into it after I was chewed on pretty good by a rather zealously brother after I preached a message on the Resurrection in his congregation last year, I having made a few unthinking and passing references to "Easter"... within the course of the message. His primary thrust was his perception of the pagan origins of the name and subsequent (shudder, Jay ) Catholic promotion thereof.
This was certainly a trend in the conservative homeschooling / house churching movement of the 1990s, based on a (in my opinion, faulty) teaching that "Easter" is actually some kind of pagan ritual in service to a false god.
Note that in Latin and in Slavic / Eastern languages the holiday is generally called "Pascha" or some similar transliterated term.
Wikipedia wrote:In the 8th century AD, Anglo-Saxon monk and scholar Bede recorded in his The Reckoning of Time that Ēosturmōnaþ (Old English for 'Month of Ēostre', translated in Bede's time as "Paschal month") was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says "was once called after a goddess of theirs named Ēostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month".
"Easter" is just an English word that essentially means "April", much like how in Swedish they still call Christmas jul.
Just as likely it comes from the Old German Eostara considering all the similarities to the Easter "celebrations" of today. (Including the ham) The general Pennsylvania-German pronunciation that I grew up with certainly points to that. But then on the flip side I did not grow up celebrating the pagan accoutrements of the term, or knowing about them for that matter. But I do not begrudge anyone wanting to use the term Resurrection Day. Seems "cleaner" somehow.
) Catholic promotion thereof. 