Sunday, August 11, 2013

James Malm: Women Who Do Not Wear Head Coverings In Church Tend To Be Feminists Who Are Usually LEWD and Lascivious

What TRUE followers of the Father will be wearing at James Malm's Oregon feast site:

James Malm, the Official Church Pharisee of the Church of God, in yet another bastardization of the message of God, has declared that true Christian women who worship the Father WILL wear head coverings in church.  Those that do not are usually feminists at heart and many times tend to be lascivious in the sexual appetites.

Malm starts off with this:
I Corinthians 11:1-16
Because the instructions of Paul are based on the culture of Israel and today most are ignorant of that culture, it is necessary to provide that cultural background before directly addressing Paul’s instructions.

The law that God gave to Moses acknowledged the wearing of head coverings by married women and expressly commanded  that a woman accused of adultery is to have her veil removed.
Numbers 5:18    And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head,   and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: 5:20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
5:21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; 5:22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
5:23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water: 5:24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
5:25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar: 5:26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
5:27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
This is an allegory for us today, that when we depart from dedicated loyalty to Jesus Christ and the whole word of God; we are spiritually adulterers against Jesus Christ for being zealous for others instead of being zealous for Jesus Christ and his word.

God uses the physical to teach us spiritual lessons.  I will go into these things in depth when I do the Numbers Study.  For the moment I only want to demonstrate how  Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 11 are based on the law of God and that Paul was revealing a spiritual principle, by applying that law to religious practices as opposed to applying it to all public life. 

Paul did not say that all married women were to cover their heads at all times in public ,as was the custom in Israel!   Rather he said that the women should cover their heads when praying or prophesying [discussing] the scriptures; clearly taking this physical reality and revealing it’s spiritual lessons.

That law clearly implies that if a lewd woman is to have her veil removed; that she is forfeiting the sign of a faithful woman because of her lewdness.  Therefore the veil is a sign of a woman’s fidelity to her husband and according to Paul, spiritually head coverings are a sign of fidelity to the religion and commandments of God.  Again this is the law of God and of Holy Scripture.
So why in the world would a custom from 2,000 years ago be relevant to women today?  Notice it is always the women that gets the short shift on everything.  Men, particularly COG men and Church Pharisee's, never seem to be able to do anything wrong, it is always the women's fault. 

That law clearly implies that if a lewd woman is to have her veil removed; that she is forfeiting the sign of a faithful woman because of her lewdness.  Therefore the veil is a sign of a woman’s fidelity to her husband and according to Paul, spiritually head coverings are a sign of fidelity to the religion and commandments of God.  Again this is the law of God and of Holy Scripture.

Some would say:  What do the customs of 2,000 years ago matter?

They matter to Jesus Christ, who inspired the law and the words of Paul and had them preserved for thousands of years FOR OUR INSTRUCTION! 
I honestly can see why James Malm's wife divorced him.  Can you imagine the hell this woman put up with over the years!

Sin, rebellion, lewdness and lasciviousness entered the Church of God through Loma Armstrong's feminist leanings.

Malm goes on to quote from several authors about head coverings for women.  Then he says this:

This identification as being married [married women wore head coverings] protected the women from unwanted attention by wife seekers; however it was more than that.  Under God’s law the woman came under the authority of her husband when she married.  The wicked wife removed her veil to play the whore in complete DISRESPECT for the lordship of her husband when he was away. 
So if this was true, then Malm is claiming that Loma Armstrong was a whore because she refused to wear a head covering while her husband was away.

Loma was also not repsectable of her husband:

We now see that wearing the covering veil, represented a respectable married woman, and also represented RESPECT for the authority of her husband.    While removing or refusing to wear a covering veil represented an unfaithful wife, a fallen woman an adulteress.
Malm has this to say about his pissed off thing he calls "jesus" who expects women to wear head coverings:
The scriptures make it clear that to Jesus Christ; the cloth covering of head neil is a symbol of modesty and innocence.
Genesis 24:654   And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. 24:65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.
Isaiah 47:1     Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. 47:2 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks [remove your symbol of modesty and innocence, your head covering] , make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.  47:3 Thy nakedness [hidden sins] shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

 Malm writes:
In the church of God it was Loma Armstrong a strong feminist who brought in unclean furs and forced Herbert to abandon hair coverings.  These things then became HWA tradition contrary to scripture.

Then quotes:

The feminist revolution is what changed things in America. So those who argue that we have a different culture have obviously adopted the feminist culture as their own; because America’s founders (the wives) were covered as are the faithful today.  

If God’s faithful have always held to the practice of Head Covering as an Apostolic Ordinance, and the Devil’s crowd have always faught against it (which is historical fact); then what side do you want to support? Many theories have been put forth to avoid the obvious teaching of the passage, and deliver women from being a “gazing stock” in this feminist society; but truth is truth and cannot he supplanted by those who wrest the Scripture for their own purposes.   

The Greek word for “cover” in all verses except where speaking of the hair (11:15) is a form of Katakalupto – a hanging veil, from kata – down or downward, and Kalupto – to cover or veil. To take off this veil in public in the first century would equate you with a “feminist” or a woman of loose morals, so it was even all one as if she were shaven (taking the man’s position of short cut hair).She was not shaven or shorn, but removing the material veil, like the man, was saying the same thing as removing her natural long hair, like the man.  It was usurping the masculine role and violating the headship order.  

Then James gives HIS interporeation of what HE thinks I Corintinas 11:1-16 means:

1 Cor 11
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

The head of Christ is the Father and it would not be right for Christ to do anything to dishonour his Father. The head of every man is Christ and it is not right to show disrespect or to dishonour our head who is Jesus Christ.  And if we do dishonour Christ do we not also dishonour the Father?  For Christ and the Father are one. 
Now the head of the woman is her husband, and it is not right that she should do any thing to dishonour her husband; for if she brings dishonour to her husband she also brings dishonour to his head even Jesus Christ and the Father.

4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. He dishonours Christ.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
If a woman has her head uncovered, she was considered promiscuous by the custom of Israel and the law of God.  For having her head uncovered is a dishonour to her husband and is the same as broadcasting that she refuses the authority of her own husband; which means that she also refuses the authority of his head, even Christ and the Father.

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
If a woman refuses to cover her head, then let her head be shaved or her hair cropped close.  This cannot mean that the hair is the covering; since if she had hair and it were the covering spoken of; why would Paul command that the hair be shaved off, if it is the covering that he commands?

7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:
The husband is a type of Christ who will become the husband of the New Covenant. but the woman is the glory of the man. The woman is to cover her head as a symbol that she is under the power or authority of her husband and of his head, Christ and the Father.  For the man symbolizes Christ as the husband of spiritual Israel.

8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
As the woman was made for the man; even so the bride was made for Christ.

10For this cause ought the woman to have [a symbol of modesty, being under authority] power on her head because of the angels.
The word angelos means messenger and here refers to those heavenly spirit messengers as well as to visitors from outside the congregation who might give an evil report of the congregation for the promiscuous behaviour of the brethren there.  The point being made is that an example of humility and modesty is being set for the spirits and for others.

11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
The man and the wife are one flesh before the Lord and this wearing of a covering does not divide the woman from the man; indeed if is a symbol of respect and unity between husband and wife.

13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
People of Israel; whose custom and law is that an uncovered woman is a promiscuous person and an unfaithful wife; is it right that a woman come before God with the attire of a rebellious and rejected  wife?

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
How long is long?  This is a reference to Deu 22:5   The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Paul’s statement refers to a woman taking on a  masculine appearance, or a man appearing as feminine.  A woman’s hair is inappropriate when it tends to make her look masculine regardless of actual length.  A man’s hair is inappropriate when it makes him look feminine.  Paul is not referring to a little hair over the collar or some such artificial nonsense.

15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Feminine hair is a glorious crown or covering upon the head of the ladies.  This glory should be covered in a gesture of modesty and respect for her husband, when she prays or discusses the word of God.

While “abundant” hair is a glory, this does not mean women cannot cut or curl their hair to make it look its best.  Not everyone has the good fortune to be born with thick and/or luxurious hair, and there is nothing wrong with cutting it into a nice style that suits our faces and figures.  We are simply not to cut our hair into anything resembling a “masculine” style.  Our bodies are, after all, Christ’s vessels and we are commanded to take care of them, from top to bottom and the inside-out (1 Cor. 6:19):
The Creator has always been adamant about the roles and conduct of each gender.  He made it very clear that women are to “act feminine” and dress modestly:
Deuteronomy 22: 5 “A woman is not to wear men’s clothing, and a man is not to put on women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord your God.
1 Timothy 2:9. So also, that women (appear) in a chaste fashion of dress; and that their adorning be with modesty and chastity; not with curls or with gold, or with pearls, or with splendid robes;  10. but with good works as is becoming to women who profess reverence for Elohim.
1 Peter 3: 3. And don’t adorn yourselves with the external ornaments of curls of the hair, or of golden trinkets or of costly garments.  4. But adorn yourselves in the hidden person of the heart with a mild and pure spirit, an ornament that is precious before Elohim.  5. For so also the Set Apart women of old who trusted in Elohim, adorned themselves and were subject to their husbands….
The above obviously shows that the wearing of today’s micro-miniskirts and revealing cleavage, etc., is not allowed or acceptable!
14. Does not nature teach you that in a man, if his hair grows long, it is a reproach to him?    
It’s a shame for a man to grow long hair, if his goal is to look like a woman.  Torah requires that there be a clear distinction between male and female (Deuteronomy 22:5).  Each person must be clearly recognizable according to their natural birth gender.  Long hair on a man is NOT the sole issue; those taking Nazarite vows wore long hair some for life (Samson) and others for a season.  Paul himself took a Nazarite vow.  Rav Shaul  [Paul] is teaching against pagan sexuality practices, of those who do things to make themselves appear as the opposite gender.

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
The subject here  is the Jewish custom of men wearing prayer shawls when they pray and of women praying with their glorious hair uncovered;  which is the precise opposite of the scriptures. Paul has explained the scriptural law and the customs of Israel and reveals to the Corinthians that men covering their heads is not scriptural and dishonours Christ; while women covering their heads is both scriptural and appropriate.

Can you imagine after reading all of this bullshit  that it is going to be like at Malm's feast site?  Men will be wearing Jewish prayer shawls and women will be wearing head coverings exactly like Yisryl Hawkins COG cult in Texas does.

Men will be in front and women delegated to the back in separate areas.  Menstruating women cannot be around CLEAN men.

Malm continues:

The covering of a woman’s veil of glory, her hair; was a matter of proper modesty and a token that she was married [under the power of a husband].  

For a woman to go uncovered was to be seen as a rebellious or adulterous wife; and was a great shame in Israel.  Since such behavior brought shame on her and her head [husband] and his head [Christ] it was to be avoided for the sake of modesty and acceptable behavior.

Look at the state of the church today!  Why are we in such a state?  Because we lack God’s spirit, and we lack God’s spirit because we do not obey him with zeal and a whole heart; instead every group leader is doing what is right in his own eyes.   

Sin and evil entered the COG because women were rebellious and lewd.  Their men must have liked it because they too became lack and were swayed by beguiling world s of false shepherds.  Thank God Malm came along to set us all straight!

I had thought that this head covering was a small thing and after more study I find that is goes to the very basics of the problem in the COGs; Personal P R I D E and a lack of respect for God!

We have lost sight of the fact that what we do is a direct reflection of our attitude of heart!  A woman can be covered fully and still be immodest in attitude, it is not the clothes that makes one modest, but the attitude.  The clothes are only the outward sign which can be deceitful.

If one is modest in heart; one will dress modestly. One may be wanton and still dress modestly.  True modesty cannot be legislated by dress codes since it is of the heart!  Yet our God KNOWS the hearts of humanity, therefore if a woman cries out in prayer during some sudden situation: The Eternal will hear!  His hearing is not dulled by what we wear!

Women WILL be wearing head coverings at Malm's cult feast site, you can be guaranteed of that:

To those who do love their God I say:

Ladies, there is no law against wearing a head covering on your hair and it opens up a whole new world of understanding when it is done!  By showing that extra degree of RESPECT for our God when in prayer or in study; it will promote a personal degree of modesty and humility before God, which is sadly lacking today!

It will promote spiritual growth and development by setting a proper foundation of true humility before God as we pray.


Byker Bob said...

Ah. If you're going to Malm's feast, looking to pick up chicks, go for the ones without head coverings!


Head Usher said...

"Ladies, there is no law against wearing a head covering on your hair and it opens up a whole new world of understanding when it is done!"

And you know this how?

Anonymous said...

Dear James Malm,

I've been looking in my closet for appropriate head coverings for my wife to wear next Sabbath, and the Holy Spirit led me to a few particular items.

Can you put your official stamp of approval on any of these tentative choices?


Or this?


How about this?

Or this?

Maybe this?

Or this one?

Grateful in Galveston

Corky said...

See those beanies on the men's heads sitting at the tables? Yep, God likes that. It shows God great respect when people go around looking stupid.

Painful Truth said...

"How long is long? The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

I guess Thomas Jefferson and Franklin are heathen scum like the rest of the long haired founding fathers. The so called children of Israel founded the BI nation of America by law breakers, eh Malm?

So Malm is saying that this nation was founded by abominable men because they had long hair?

Anonymous said...

And I bet Malm is still wondering why his wife left him...

Why indeed.

Byker Bob said...

So, it would be wrong for David Bowie to wear long hair, but it would be OK for Sonny Barger? Somehow, I don't think the hair has much to do with how people interpret a man's masculinity.

Even when it was popular, I never really had what you would call long hair, because I'm an oiler. Even daily shampooing didn't control that. I believe the WCG got way too judgmental, though, and couldn't see past people's hair. It's a shame when a matter of personal grooming allows you to totally write off a fellow human being, and for all intents and purposes, that is what Malm is advocating.

One humorous story, though. One summer, I started a house sitting business. I tried to line up homes that had nice pools. Anyway, my facial hair got me excluded from one job. Homeowner told me his dobermans would tear me up because I had long sideburns. Worst case of transference of prejudice I've ever encountered. The guy had a flattop which I suspect he had redone every two weeks, and I'd guess that was his personal standard.


Anonymous said...

If my husband (who actually reads through James Malm's site) even looks like asking me to wear a head covering there will be fireworks! Also, everything seems to be that women are inferior and need to ask their husbands for spiritual input! How about the scriptures Eph. 5:25 where men are asked to love their wives AS CHRIST LOVES THE CHURCH and 2 Cor. 2:15 where we are a sweet perfume of Christ to God (MEN & WOMEN).

Anonymous said...

I remember HWA asking us at AC 1972, "Why would a man want to look like a woman with long hair?" I ask, "Why would a man want to shave his face smooth and look like a woman?" For someone who claims to obey the Law of God, why does his shave his face? Inconsistency is one of the big problems with the COG's