Friday, May 10, 2013

James Malm Admits He Despises The New Testament



James Malm, the world's most perfect legalist and the Church of God's official Pharisee let slip today why he despises the New Testament.  He is focused on UCG's new focus on "love" and "grace."  Two words that are anathema to Malm.  These words, in order to be used properly,  MUST include LAW with them.

[ADMIN COMMENT: Brethren this New Testament focus instead of on the whole of scripture, his focus on the buzzwords of "unity" and "love" to gain a following, is not an new phase in UCG, it has ever been in the shadows.  Now  that the HWA loyalists have been removed, they are free to follow their long time agenda and establish their "New Testament Evangelical Christian denomination".  The true Jesus and the true Holy Sprit of zeal for the teachings and commandments of God  is nowhere to be found]

That "spirit of zeal" Malm whores himself out to is abusive legalism. As for the "true" Jesus, who in the hell would that be in Malmism? Certainly something that no one cares to follow.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Malm to followers: I am your leader

Members to Malm: We find you wanting

Jesus to followers: Well done!

Anonymous said...

All these splinters are no more than a social club for people who had been systematically stripped of the expectations and purpose they had when they first showed up. What is the point of such a club? Why give them your time or your money? If you slap a christian label on that club, does being a member of it make you a christian? The members of that club may pay lipservice to christian values, but why should that make them any different? It doesn't. They believe they're christians, even though none of them act like it, simply because of club membership. And all this lawkeeping, judging, and condemning amounts to is hazing, but because belonging to one of these clubs is supposedly just the initiation process into another "higher" club, the hazing never ends. No thank you, I'd rather go to the "lower" club.

Joe Moeller said...

Anonymous above is correct. HAZING is actually illegal in the United Sates, but "hazing" is what most COG groups are indeed doing.

Malm is a sadist, it is obvious from his writings. He would just LOVE to have a few morons that he can punish and watch "not living up to" his expectations.

Even odds that this guy is divorced and that his kids cant stand him.

But the hazing idea is still interesting though. I suggest that the COGS just lower the standards, and make hazing much more playful, like...

1) Playing beer pong till you pass out on a "congregation vs congregation" basis.

2) Declare "BB Gun" or "Paint Gun" day at church picnics as a "team sport"

3) Church "Baby Oil" or "Mud" wrestling events.

4) "Sadie Hawkins" punishments rather than outright disfellowshipments. Minister, or member has to wear a dress (with hose and pumps) to church for two months, in lieu of disfellowshipment.

5) Use Russian "Slapping Contests" to settle problems and disagreements.

Just brainstorming, and would love to here other potential hazing ideas that should be codified for COG initiation and problem resolution.

Joe Moeller
Cody, WY

Byker Bob said...

Actually, amongst those seeking revision as solution to the Armstrong problem, going more Jewish is fairly common. Probably the most vocal subset has been the "one God" people whom we encounter on some of the different forums.

If you read Dr. James Tabor's "The Jesus Dynasty", you can get a pretty good idea as to how this is rationalized. Apparently, some consider the Old Covenant, lightly seasoned with a small dash of Jesus to be the correct New Covenant. The problem in this is that they completely ignore the scripture where God says He will write a New Covenant, not according to the Old one.

Malm, by deemphasizing love, completely overlooks the TGCOL, or two great commandments of the Lord. Love for God, love for fellow man, also known as the royal law of love, or the law behind the law. Jesus told His followers that if they loved Him, they should keep these two commandments.

It's very difficult to discuss rational theology with people who don't understand dispensations, and let's face it, there were such things. You can get a feel for them by tracing God's evolving approach through the various covenants in the Old Testament leading to the New Covenant.

Armstrong theology has always treated the subject of law as being one constant, restated and re-revealed from the time of Adam and Eve forward through all generations. The problem is, many of the writings in the Bible appear absolutely ignorant or ridiculous (in advance, quiet Corky!) if you choose to hold to this. Adam and Eve only had one or two commandments (like don't eat the wrong fruit, and, be fruitful and multiply), and appear to have been vegetarians. Noah wasn't even required to be circumcised. That became one of the lynchpins of the covenant with Abraham, and the law of Moses.

Malm is very busy attempting to do something that the New Testament teaches that you can't do: Qualify for the kingdom of heaven by trying to be good. Too bad his name isn't "Amos", or we could just throw up our hands and say, "Ignore Amos"!

BB

Anonymous said...

Right you are BB!
The laws re incest in Lev 18 obviously weren't applicable to Adam or Noah or even Abraham's times since Adam & Eve's children all committed incest in order to procreate & Noah's grandchildren may have done the same & we know Abraham married his half-sister which was later forbidden in the Mosaic Law. In the latter scenario some say Abraham married his niece not half-sister, but either way both are later forbidden in Lev 18:9, 11, 12. So it is evident that some laws given via Moses were not applicable to the antediluvian and pre-Mosaic eras.

Anonymous said...

Yes, going more Jewish is very common, even to the extent of adopting the language, clothing, and other traditional Jewish trappings.

Jesus said that when you show love toward your fellow man, you have shown it unto me. That suggests that by following the 2nd commandment of loving your neighbor, you are also following the 1st commandment of loving God. Even though it's right there in the bible, this concept is totally foreign to Armstrongite "Christianity."

Armstrongism has always subscribed to a different, Judaizing strategy of showing love, or at least devotion, unto God through ritual observance, trying to impress God in a vacuum, as though their fellow man did not even exist.

Armstrongites try to keep only the 1st commandment, thinking that's all they really need. They're just doing it selfishly to try to get a "reward," and have no conception of spirituality being a transformative process. Enlightenment is not among their goals. Many get caught up in weeks of "deleavening" and never ending fights over things like "dining out on the sabbath," as though that stuff were of the highest priority. The reason why they spend so much time majoring in such inconsequential issues is because the 2nd commandment isn't even on their radar.

Eventually, if you're paying attention, it's going to dawn on you how there is no light at the end of the tunnel of Armstrongism. It just leads to a dead-end. But so many people have spent their entire lifetimes not paying attention.

Douglas Becker said...

It's really important to be an Olde Testament Christian so you can be the most excellent Pharisee.

Anonymous said...

NO2HWA, I have to ask, although I am anon in this post, are you a PT shill FOR UCG? Seems that you are pretty positive about the direction they are taking. Not sure on this though. Malm in contect, although I think he is a goofball, is stating that UCG more and more are rejecting the OT as time moves forward. Anyone who has read about early church history would have to admit, even from scripture (the NT) that the first Christians used the OT as it was the only writings that existed. If someone is a believer, especially today, wouldn't one want to understand the NT in light of the OT which was its foundation in some ways? The church was likely to read the OT in light of or in the light of Jesus' walk on earth. Legalism is obviously fraudulent. But love without any definition of what it they (UCG) mean by it is rather useless. Robin uses in one of his writings "in his care.' What on earth does that mean? It is not even scriptural in a direct sense. These guys have gone from Yikes (law oriented) to Yuk (syrupy with no real meaning 'love') in a very short time. I agree that the Malm-man is bizarre, but these guys are pulling a JWT (Jr. or otherwise) saying nothing is changing as they slowly evangelicalize. (is that a word).

Anyway NO2, your blog is deeply impacting for me and obviously for many others. Just a thought from what you have written lately.

NO2HWA said...

Obviously you have not been reading here long. In no way do I support UCG. Though....it has a better chance of imporving its self than the hundreds of other splinter groups do. I watched the underhanded shenanigans that Kubik and others did when they remained on WCG payroll so they could form their new group and move over to secure incomes.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Joe Moeller, who said that "hazing" is what most COG groups are indeed doing.

Take, for instance, the United Church of God-

Their form of hazing is to have a female member get totally stalked by a crazy male member, to the point that she's afraid for her safety, and then have UCG elders show up in court to defend the crazy stalker man!