Arthur M. Casci Testimony

[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.

So two things come to mind:

First is when did Christ become so old, that He had to become so new?
Second, if this "new Christ" doesn't care about the poor, the sick, and the weak then He is probably a "different Christ" that Paul was warning us about. If this was a Christ where we 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 us about. If this was a new Christ where we elevated men and made distinctions among ourselves, and then ignored righteousness when our elevated men (our "Moses" and "Noah") were found to be with feet of clay like the rest, what kind of 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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

First is when did Christ become so old, that He had to become so new?

Had you grown up in my Catholic church, seeing those archaic pictures of Jesus, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, Mary, Joseph, and more -- you would agree that Christ was a little "old."

The same thing happened to the Temple two millennia ago, which I wrote a little about. Perhaps you missed that post?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Had you grown up in my Catholic church, seeing those archaic pictures of Jesus, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, Mary, Joseph, and more -- you would agree that Christ was a little "old."

The same thing happened to the Temple two millennia ago, which I wrote a little about. Perhaps you missed that post?

I do see your point. But I'm still warning against one possible alternative to your "Old Christ" in that the proposed "New Christ" may not even be Christ at all! It's just worth considering. Of course the benign possibility for LC "new" this and that is that the Bible says it too. Surely Lee referenced the Bible regarding newness, in his messages. Or else the songs would not have been written at all. New this and renewed that, right up to the New Jerusalem. New, new, new.

But if our (experienced) Christ was old that doesn't mean that Christ Himself was old. Or that Christ Himself is now new. The songs state that second part quite plainly, and thus imply the first, to me. Maybe it got lost in translation; maybe WL said something from the podium and it got taken out of context and a song was put forth and sung. "A new Christ"... I notice, for instance, that the song in post #34 that I quoted, from the old "supplement book", never made it into the LSM hymnal.

Nonetheless we should be wary of different Christs coming along who are supposedly Christ made new... Christs who are full of themselves, who put others down, who criticize, and are litigious, opinionated, boastful, and so forth. Those "Christs" will no doubt tell you how "old" everyone else is, how they are so "rich" and so forth, full of "high peak visions" and "revelations to end the age". New indeed. Watch out for them. Be aware.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I do see your point. But I'm still warning against one possible alternative to your "Old Christ" in that the proposed "New Christ" may not even be Christ at all! It's just worth considering. Of course the benign possibility for LC "new" this and that is that the Bible says it too. Surely Lee referenced the Bible regarding newness, in his messages. Or else the songs would not have been written at all. New this and renewed that, right up to the New Jerusalem. New, new, new.

It all became frightfully tedious during the heyday of the "new way." Endless changes coming from Lee's "laboratory" constantly made yesterday's "new" become today's "old." Who could keep up with the daily changes? Regular conflicts occurred between the younger and "newer" zealots and the older, slower leaders. Lee and his lackeys seemed to love it. They courted those who thrived on change, while sifting those who paused a moment to consider the consequences. "New" became the mantra for ministry excitement, while abandoning all those who straggled behind.

Lee used "newness, oneness, and new Jerusalem" talk to promote his own self-serving interests. Lee abandoned any concept of local autonomy by downplaying the concept of "church" and playing up the one body. The local church you loved was "merely the procedure" to arrive at his goals, using the N.J. as a ruse to reach them. Oneness was held out as the proverbial "carrot" to advance robotic uniformity, extolling him in the place of honor.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But if our (experienced) Christ was old that doesn't mean that Christ Himself was old. Or that Christ Himself is now new. The songs state that second part quite plainly, and thus imply the first, to me. Maybe it got lost in translation; maybe WL said something from the podium and it got taken out of context and a song was put forth and sung. "A new Christ"... I notice, for instance, that the song in post #34 that I quoted, from the old "supplement book", never made it into the LSM hymnal. .

The Bible does say that if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away, behold all things have become new. This is a word of "experience," and sometimes when we had this "experience," it was hard to tell whether Christ was new, we were new, or both. I never had the impression that this was any kind of "different" Christ. I still feel this thought of "different" applied to the LCM is just a bogey man to scare us on the forum.

Romans also says, "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." It does seem that Christ is in newness when we walk in Him.

I can go to a hundred different churches on Sunday and feel like there are a 100 "different" Christ's and/or gospels. The people are different, the message is different, the service is different, the building is different, the music is different, etc. etc. It all comes down to how we define "different." Neither LSM nor this forum uses a definition for "different" which I can agree with, and which agrees with Paul's initial use of the phrase in Galatians.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I still feel this thought of "different" applied to the LCM is just a bogey man to scare us on the forum.

Lee had a whole briefcase full of bogey man to scare and intimidate us into doing things his way. "Fragrance" was one, as in "this does not have the proper fragrance." Which in reality meant it wasn't according to his taste. Others included "natural," "human wisdom," "man's work," "religion," "proper church life," "tradition," "independent," "ambition," and a slew of others. Just think of any catchphrase he threw around and you can probably recall a time he used it to prop himself up and discredit someone else.

This is how he held us in line. Whenever we did anything he didn't like or which threatened his absolute authority, he would pull out one of these bogey men and we'd all cower like puppies who peed on the parquet. We really didn't know how or why our efforts came up short, and these maladies were vague and subjective enough to make disagreeing with him a waste of time. Call it plausible deniability. But when he started calling enjoying the Psalms "natural" warning bells should have gone off.

He and only he held the key to discerning these things, or so he led us to believe. Actually he was a brilliant manipulator. The only question is whether he did it cynically or sincerely. But there is no doubt he was a manipulator. Of course, all demagogues are.

Now Lee's successors use the same catchphrases to intimidate and control the masses. Do anything they can't control and be prepared to be called "natural," "ambitious," "infragrant," yada, yada, yada.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee had a whole briefcase full of bogey man to scare and intimidate us into doing things his way. "Fragrance" was one, as in "this does not have the proper fragrance." Which in reality meant it wasn't according to his taste. Others included "natural," "human wisdom," "man's work," "religion," "proper church life," "tradition," "independent," "ambition," and a slew of others. Just think of any catchphrase he threw around and you can probably recall a time he used it to prop himself up and discredit someone else.

This is how he held us in line. Whenever we did anything he didn't like or which threatened his absolute authority, he would pull out one of these bogey men and we'd all cower like puppies who peed on the parquet. We really didn't know how or why our efforts came up short, and these maladies were vague and subjective enough to make disagreeing with him a waste of time. Call it plausible deniability. But when he started calling enjoying the Psalms "natural" warning bells should have gone off.

He and only he held the key to discerning these things, or so he led us to believe. Actually he was a brilliant manipulator. The only question is whether he did it cynically or sincerely. But there is no doubt he was a manipulator. Of course, all demagogues are.

Now Lee's successors use the same catchphrases to intimidate and control the masses. Do anything they can't control and be prepared to be called "natural," "ambitious," "infragrant," yada, yada, yada.

I first came across the concept of a religious bogey man when i was researching Plymouth Brethren history. Historians mentioned the Exclusives' use of the British expression "bug bear" in the closet, using fear to control children's behavior. My eyes were opened. Immediately i saw the connection with Lee. It served to release me from some of my deap-seated fears regarding the Recovery.

Yes, Lee was a master manipulator. One could say it is a gift from God to be used either for good or for evil. All gifted evangelists have employed this talent for good. Salesmen use this for their livelihood. Over the course of time, however, Lee's power to manipulate deteriorated for his own self-serving interests. He no longer brought people to the Lord, but rather brought them to himself. The Apostle Paul warned us of such with tears. (Acts 20.30)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can go to a hundred different churches on Sunday and feel like there are a 100 "different" Christ's and/or gospels. The people are different, the message is different, the service is different, the building is different, the music is different, etc. etc.

One Jesus, Many Christs : How Jesus Inspired Not One True Christianity, but Many. ~ by Gregory J. Riley
http://www.amazon.com/One-Jesus-Many.../dp/B002SG6I4G

E Pluribus Unum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

One Jesus, Many Christs : How Jesus Inspired Not One True Christianity, but Many. ~ by Gregory J. Riley
http://www.amazon.com/One-Jesus-Many.../dp/B002SG6I4G

E Pluribus Unum

My post was an attempt to redefine what "another" means in our context, not more reading material from the mighty amazon.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My post was an attempt to redefine what "another" means in our context, not more reading material from the mighty amazon.

Yeah. Dopey me. I should have explained myself ... and made the point I was hoping others would get.

And that is:

From the beginning, since Jesus, down thru the millenia, there's been many different Christ movements. Thus: One Jesus, many Christs.

And yes, as you pointed out, Paul warned and cried about the fact that he obviously knew was going to happen to the Jesus Movement; that it would arise "of your own selves."

And it happened. It was actually already going on. Christianity, as history attests, diversified. In the early days of the movement different gospels were flying all around. Thus, the heresy wars of the early church fathers. And thus, The First Council of Nicaea ... and the Roman Emperor Constantine ... and Christianity became the state religion.

But all efforts to contain the diversification of Christianity failed. Even burning at the stake and torture failed to do the job.

And the diversification of Christianity eventually exploded. Today there are over 33,000 sects of Christianity.

And Nee and Lee and their Recovery Movement is just one more sect among thousands.

I remember, we use to say, all of Christianity was a religion. But the local church movement wasn't religion at all, it was claimed. Ended up they, we, were more religious than the average bear, than the average Christian.

I think Arthur Casci makes a point. If yer gonna go for something like the Nee and Lee movement, just get it over with and go back to the Holy Mother Church. It's got the orthodox traditions going way back. And it's proven to be so zealous and devoted to Jesus that, they are, or have been, willing to kill and die for it.

Neither Nee nor Lee were that given.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can go to a hundred different churches on Sunday and feel like there are a 100 "different" Christ's and/or gospels. The people are different, the message is different, the service is different, the building is different, the music is different, etc. etc. It all comes down to how we define "different." Neither LSM nor this forum uses a definition for "different" which I can agree with, and which agrees with Paul's initial use of the phrase in Galatians.

Well I paint with a broad brush. Maybe too broad in this case. But you & I both agree that once WL got us to bite on the " new" concept, he could sell us anything. Every thing that he said was then by definition "new", and everybody else was old. New became subjective, a moving target, and it could be whatever he needed it to be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Well I paint with a broad brush. Maybe too broad in this case. But you & I both agree that once WL got us to bite on the "new" concept, he could sell us anything. Every thing that he said was then by definition "new", and everybody else was old. New became subjective, a moving target, and it could be whatever he needed it to be.

What you say is true.

From my vantage in "greater Ohio," I have always resisted the notion that the LC's were cultic and preached "another" gospel. These are just not things I can say with a clear conscience.

Today I was outside walking with a neighbor who mentioned today was Easter for him, since he is a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox church. In the past I might have condemned them for "another" gospel, but I am no longer so sure of my judgments. They proclaim faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the way of salvation. Isn't that enough?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have always resisted the notion that the LC's were cultic and preached "another" gospel. These are just not things I can say with a clear conscience.

Yours is a conviction on the topic that I have vacillated on depending on the "difference" that is currently in front of us. My general conclusion is that Christ is Christ, but that there is something in the teachings of some groups that makes their description go from marginal to someone else. We are clear that some do not think Christ is even God. And some hem and haw about it, declaring that Christ is just the brother of Lucifer and/or some prophet. (Not a lot different than what the Moslems think.)

The LCM is not where those groups are. But they do define away parts of the historical Jesus and what he taught. The idea of maintaining a higher view of the righteous law was taught by Jesus, but to the LCM even the old version is declared as something to be avoided or ignored. If it is important it will flow out of "the dispensing." The Father and the Son may be one, but are not described as the same. But they might as well be as far as LCM teaching goes.

The LCM, from the time of Nee until now has been about the inner life teachings that Nee was steeped in early on. The inner life is not wrong if it is not the only "life" taught and lived. But for the LCM, that is just about all there is. Like those commercials about having an unbalanced diet where everyone is walking around slanted almost 45 degrees relative to the ground, there is a lot more to the full Christian life than what the inner-life people teach. And Nee and Lee took that teaching to a nearly ridiculous extreme.

No, they do not teach a different Christ. Yet so many aspects of what their "same" Christ teaches to us today does not look like what the rest of us are learning from Him. Theirs seems to be an abridged version. That might not be a big deal if it is The Teachings of Christ for Normal Living. But instead is seems to be Our Favorite Chapter From Christ's Words Reanalyzed for Isolated 'Church Life' Living. And then they spend a lot of time telling us how that paying attention to the rest of the stuff is evidence of being degraded.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

First is when did Christ become so old, that He had to become so new?

Second, if this "new Christ" doesn't care about the poor, the sick, and the weak then He is probably a "different Christ" that Paul was warning us about. If this was a Christ where we 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 us about. If this was a new Christ where we elevated men and made distinctions among ourselves, and then ignored righteousness when our elevated men (our "Moses" and "Noah") were found to be with feet of clay like the rest, what kind of 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 felt that InOmnibusCaritas answered the question of the Pauline-warned "different Christ". So I'm content the let the matter drop.

But Amcasci's testimony is valuable because it opens a window into a time of great change in the United States, and in this time the LC as most of us knew it came into being. First off, it was a time of the Baby Boom generation. A large group of young people came of age. What was different about this generational cohort? Well, for one it was disproportionately large, thus the "Boom" part. As any of us know, when growing up we at some point make a transition from accepting and copying everything of our parents' generation, to questioning everything, and challenging it. Nothing new or remarkable there.

But in this era, the 1960s, a number of social issues were coming into a head. Looming over everything was the threat of nuclear annihilation, with a continual intransigence between the heavily armed Super Powers (U.S. vs. U.S.S.R.). Then there was the environmental crisis, with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", Barry Commoner's "The Closing Circle", and so forth. There was the Women's Movement. The Civil Rights Movement. An unpopular war (Vietnam) taking over the public discourse.

All of this served to highlight the questioning of the status quo. So the popular verbiage of the day was, "Stick it to the Man", i.e. don't cooperate with the current power structure. They sometimes called it the "System", a tightly woven oppressive regime which controlled culture, commerce, religion, and politics. The process of actively resisting the "System" was called the "counter-culture". Hippies, Yippies, Dopers, rebels... "Tune in, turn on, drop out." Don't participate in "the System".

And my point was that WL made a lot of this: he continually denigrated the status quo, not just in civil society but also in religious society. He both claimed to be from orthodox Christianity, and yet rejected it completely. His disciples were isolated from, and hostile to, organized Christian religion, which they ironically claimed to purely represent! WL was simultaneously the leader of the most orthodox Christian group (so he said), and completely hostile to all forms of orthodox Christian expression. Even the Protestants were "daughters of the harlot".

So it's no surprise to me, looking back, that this was all seemingly wonderful to people like Casci and others. And not only with WL: look at what happened in Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa CA, with Chuck Smith. They grew from 20 people to 500 within 2 years. And it is no wonder that in the 1970s when the excesses of the unconventional ways occurred, notably Jim Jones and the Jonestown Guyana tragedy, that the cultural pendulum swung the other way and the "social deviance" of the LCs was scrutinized by the cult watching press.

When you step back and look at it, none of it seems too surprising at all. That is why Amcasci's testimony is so valuable. It opens a window into a time in history.

And secondly, I wanted to make the point that the so-called "counter-culture" was just more culture. It formed as an alternative to an existing culture, but it was yet one more culture, with its own norms and behaviors. And likewise WL's "new Christ" was really just repackaged religion. An old gambit with a shiny new label. But it really was nothing new at all. It was just fallen man, reacting to fallen man. Same old, same old. I could see it on the faces of the LC faithful when the latest "move" came along, courtesy of the "oracle in Anaheim". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Cal]

Details and quibbling aside, I think a real way the LCM's Christ is different is his motivations.

The LCM portrayed Christ as a deity totally interested in "his purpose" and "his expression," and who was interested in people only to the extent that they helped him accomplish his long-term goals. The LCM portrayed Christ as one who lived, suffered and died as a man not out of love to redeem, but out of determination to produce "the processed God" to in turn produce "the Church" so he could get "glory," almost like he was just showing off.

The impression one gets from the LCM Christ is not that he loves people as an end in the themselves, but that he loves them as means to an end. Thus people were devalued and made disposable. The LCM Christ is rather like the Muslim Allah, in the end a bit indifferent toward people.

This is certainly a different Christ than the biblical Christ, who died for one reason, because he didn't want to see us end up lost. For all the LCM's supposed "light" from the bible, they still missed one of the most basic verses of all, John 3:16.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The impression one gets from the LCM Christ is not that he loves people as an end in the themselves, but that he loves them as means to an end. Thus people were devalued and made disposable. The LCM Christ is rather like the Muslim Allah, in the end a bit indifferent toward people.

This is certainly a different Christ than the biblical Christ, who died for one reason, because he didn't want to see us end up lost. For all the LCM's supposed "light" from the bible, they still missed one of the most basic verses of all, John 3:16.

I think that I essentially said the same thing earlier. This "new and fresh" Christ seemingly no longer cared about the poor, the sick, the blind and the lame, and this "new and fresh" Christ seemingly didn't mind if some elevated themselves above the flock, and kept distinctions of persons to maintain "good order in the church", and this Christ seemed to overlook sin if it was among leadership, because to be scriptural we had to "cover drunken Noah", etc.

But if we're to be legalistic, who among us is without such sins, or defects? We must be broad and forgive, if we hope for God's forgiveness, in return. We must seek commonality, not differences. We must unite and not divide.

At the same time we do place value judgments on what's profitable in our spiritual journeys. We need to say "this is better than that", to some degree. The "new and fresh" processed and sevenfold intensified Christ was supposed to jet-propel us into some higher realm, whether dubbed "overcomer" or "mature" or whatnot (I remember the conference where the senior brother present asked the teen-agers if they wanted to be overcomers, or not. What were they supposed to respond!?).

And this supposedly new and better way was just the same old, same old, with a few new descriptors, many of which turned out to be recycled 19th century Sunday School lessons. Remember that song, "It may be with us you've found a better way"? In the supposed new and better way, the source was held to be the ministry of WL; it was instead WL siphoning off some of the Jesus Movement, and attaching his "new and fresh" labels.

But the difference, and any actual freshness, wasn't due to the ministry, but to the hundreds and even thousands of young seeking people. Zealous and ignorant, they were easy fodder for someone like WL.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Details and quibbling aside, I think a real way the LCM's Christ is different is his motivations.

You could see the motives when money-making opportunities arose. The "old man" of this supposedly transformed servant quickly appeared. Pecuniary interests became paramount. Profit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I think that I essentially said the same thing earlier. This "new and fresh" Christ seemingly no longer cared about the poor, the sick, the blind and the lame, and this "new and fresh" Christ seemingly didn't mind if some elevated themselves above the flock, and kept distinctions of persons to maintain "good order in the church", and this Christ seemed to overlook sin if it was among leadership, because to be scriptural we had to "cover drunken Noah", etc.

Things changed when Lee changed.

In the early days, there were lots of stories of the "downtrodden" coming to Jesus and being marvelously saved. "Blanket Fred" was one such guy who came to those early meetings with nothing more than his blanket, and he sat in the front row, unshaved, unbathed, uncultured, etc. and Lee was apparently quite fine with it. He later reveled in the opportunity to bring such to the Lord.

Compare that to today's LC work. Ole "Blanket Fred" couldn't make it past the door usher checking badges. My how Lee had changed from those early days when the Spirit was moving in America. Which was the real Lee? Hard to say, but the older Lee got, the more demands he placed on any who would attend his high-priced lectures.

Jesus, however, never changed. His ministry started with that crazy Baptizer in the wilderness, and ended with that criminal thief on the cross.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus, however, never changed. His ministry started with that crazy Baptizer in the wilderness, and ended with that criminal thief on the cross.

As our pastor says, that'll preach!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As our pastor says, that'll preach!

It's been a long time since anyone agreed with something I posted!

You caught me off guard.

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Things changed when Lee changed.

In the early days, there were lots of stories of the "downtrodden" coming to Jesus and being marvelously saved. "Blanket Fred" was one such guy who came to those early meetings with nothing more than his blanket, and he sat in the front row, unshaved, unbathed, uncultured, etc. and Lee was apparently quite fine with it. He later reveled in the opportunity to bring such to the Lord.

Compare that to today's LC work. Ole "Blanket Fred" couldn't make it past the door usher checking badges. My how Lee had changed from those early days when the Spirit was moving in America. Which was the real Lee? Hard to say, but the older Lee got, the more demands he placed on any who would attend his high-priced lectures.

Jesus, however, never changed. His ministry started with that crazy Baptizer in the wilderness, and ended with that criminal thief on the cross.

I, an old man, really liked that post.
Lisbon