[aron]

Here's one of my posts from the Arthur M. Casci testimony thread:

Originally Posted by aron

Here's the song I was thinking of earlier:

1. O Lord since time began
You've had one aim, one goal.
Your purpose will and plan
Is centered 'round all man.

New, new, new, Your goal is so new.
Take us Lord possess us to be channels for You.

2. You love to call the young
To carry out Your move,
To leave the old behind,
To have a change in mind.

New, new, new, Your move is so new,
We will be the people with this age-turning view.

3. Don't let us settle down,
Be occupied or set.
But living, open, new,
Fresh, empty, young in You!

New, new, new, Your life is so new,
You're the living One we wholly give ourselves to.

4. You long that Christ Himself,
Be known and realized,
Experienced, expressed,
In a full and living way.

New, new, new, our Christ is so new,
We are here for nothing on this earth but for You.

When did Christ become so old, that He had to become so new?

And if this "new Christ" doesn't care about the poor, the sick, and the weak then He's perhaps a "different Christ", which Paul warned us about. If this was a Christ that said to the rich man "You sit here" and to the poor man, "You sit over there, under my footstool", then this was a different Christ that James 2:1-4 warned about. If this was a new Christ where we elevated men and made distinctions among ourselves, and then ignored righteousness when our "Moses" and "Noah" were found with feet of clay like the rest, what Christ is this? All the excitement and shouting cannot cover a lack of discernment.

Just some things to think about. I'm not trying to present anything definitive here. Just thinking aloud. Asking questions.

I introduced the question if the incessant drumming of a "new Christ" had in fact brought the LCs a "different Christ", which Paul and others had warned about. After some consideration I'd probably say no, it's not a different Christ or a different gospel. But it doesn't overturn the thought that the "cult watchers" deservedly made hay of WL continually preaching a novel Christ. At some point they lumped him in with the wackos like Jim Jones. Even though that was probably unfair, he brought it on by continually saying how new and fresh his gospel was, and how stale and old everyone else's was.

But in reality it was anything but new and fresh, all the re-packaging and re-branding efforts notwithstanding. I say this because I remember the looks on the faces of the LC faithful as the latest "flow" came out of Anaheim. They were the faces of a dispirited people. All the novelty and joy had been sucked away by a ministry and an organization which was anything but new.

WL made a big deal of saying how different his gospel was. But he tried to have it both ways, because he said that WN had read every good Christian book and sorted the wheat from the chaff, and thus had handed the "recovery" a pure gospel which was following the footsteps of the apostles. So WL claimed the LC gospel was fully rooted in the ancient ways, contrary to "Christianity" which had deviated. The problem with this is that it's pure hubris to think that you have read everything worth reading, and have definitively sorted the "kernel" from the "husk", as WL claimed. This was simply a dodge to wave in front of the simple-minded, to be able to simultaneously ignore ancient Christianity while claiming to "closely follow" it. In fact the "new Christ" WL continually trumpeted veered continually from both the spirit and the letter of the gospel.