Arthur M. Casci Testimony

[Amcasci]

A very fine resource that acts as a strong antidote to "New and fresh" is a little book titled "Ordinary" written by Michael Horton. The obsession with the "new and fresh" or "the next big thing" blinds one to the ordinary and obvious work of Christ that is ours each day. Our Lord has chosen to communicate His grace and mercy to us through "ordinary" means...preaching, baptism, holy communion, the mutual consolation of the brethren. When these are set aside for "praise bands", "O Lord Jesus" shouting, church growth techniques, etc.,we quickly become hounds chasing the wind and missing the great feast that Christ has plainly put before us. A simple sermon that properly distinguishes between Law and Gospel, a daily remembrance of baptism and faithful reception of the Lord's Supper...these are the tools that make us grow in godliness and not cranking up our emotions and craving novelty.

The only "movement" that has my attention these days is moving myself from my bed to the Divine Service where I hear the good news of forgiveness in Gospel preaching and receive the good news of forgiveness in the Body and Blood of Christ given to me in the Bread and Wine of Holy Communion.

Let me also add that at my ripe age I finally figured out that each day of my life is a miniature of my entire life. I rise in the morning, remember my baptism, present my body to Him, ask the Holy Spirit to enable me to serve my neighbor, give thanks for the day's bread both physical and spiritual and at the end of the day, I thank Him for the gifts, confess the sins of the day, receive absolution and put my head on the pillow and my sleep is a rehearsal for my rest in the grave. There you have my whole life in sum lived out each day. "Teach me to live so that I may fear the grave as little as my bed". (All Praise to Thee My God This Night).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

The obsession with the "new and fresh" or "the next big thing" blinds one to the ordinary and obvious work of Christ that is ours each day.

I can say "amen" to that. It seems to me that even so much of the rhetoric I get outside the LCM is linked to being something in the kingdom. If you don't at least go on a short-term mission trip you are spiritually deficient. Spiritual life is about religious things. And so on. We are constantly taught that not being engaged in these outwardly religious activities is the equivalent of falling away. The "task" of living normal lives according to Christ is not given much press, yet it would seem that it is one of the primary ways that Christians outside of "leadership" express their faith.

And I note that when I point this way, there is generally someone who decides that I am just grumpy rather than realizing that we don't have to be fresh, joyous, and bubbly to be everything that we are intended to be. Or that I am just picking on the LCM. Surely they are in there. But they are not alone.

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by OBW

I can say "amen" to that. It seems to me that even so much of the rhetoric I get outside the LCM is linked to being something in the kingdom. If you don't at least go on a short-term mission trip you are spiritually deficient. Spiritual life is about religious things. And so on. We are constantly taught that not being engaged in these outwardly religious activities is the equivalent of falling away. The "task" of living normal lives according to Christ is not given much press, yet it would seem that it is one of the primary ways that Christians outside of "leadership" express their faith.

And I note that when I point this way, there is generally someone who decides that I am just grumpy rather than realizing that we don't have to be fresh, joyous, and bubbly to be everything that we are intended to be. Or that I am just picking on the LCM. Surely they are in there. But they are not alone.

OBW...you got it. It is not just in the LC gatherings. It is a deep sickness in American Evangelicalism that we have to be doing the big thing. I like the statement, "James and John wanted to rule; Jesus wanted someone to wash the dishes!" Husbands love your wives, do whatever you do as unto the Lord with thanksgiving, children obey your parents and on it goes. Look at the "vocation" sections of Ephesians and Colossians and the list of vocations is very ordinary. Very few are called to be the Bible translator, etc. Most of us are people who go to work day after day and thus serve our Lord and our neighbor.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God got "real old" in the temple. So old, in fact, that Jesus went in to liven that place up by flipping tables. Apparently He did that twice, maybe more.

God was also "real old" in the Catholic church I grew up in. I was devoted too. Named after my uncle O.F.M., baptized on the eighth day, 12 years parochial education, 6 years of Latin, first holy communion, confession, altar boy who knew both Latin and English, Sunday choir, yada, yada. Never once did I hear about being born again, seeing His kingdom, God becoming real to me, etc.

I understand your point. When we are young we perceive the options of sin's fleeting pleasures versus the dullness of religious ritual. So when "new and fresh" comes along, where we can "enjoy God", why not? But my warning is that when we are young and lack discernment, the idea of a new and fresh God can be a cover for a different Christ (cf 2 Cor 2:11). Amcasci in his introductory essay which I copied from the web, mentioned this. The lack of discernment makes us easy marks for re-branding a "different Christ" into a "new and fresh Christ", which the Madison Avenue types would be envious of. So we need to beware.

That doesn't mean all our experiences were null and void. But we need discernment. We should preach discernment and not just zeal. Amcasci's title was "Zealous and misled" and if that could sum up a movement it probably does.

Originally Posted by Amcasci

The obsession with the "new and fresh" or "the next big thing" blinds one to the ordinary and obvious work of Christ that is ours each day. Our Lord has chosen to communicate His grace and mercy to us through "ordinary" means...preaching, baptism, holy communion, the mutual consolation of the brethren. When these are set aside for "praise bands", "O Lord Jesus" shouting, church growth techniques, etc.,we quickly become hounds chasing the wind and missing the great feast that Christ has plainly put before us.

I believe that that phraseology wasn't in the songs unless WL spoke it repeatedly from the podium. But how much did his obsession with the new, and our acqueiscence, allow us to be buffeted by strange winds? Various "moves" and "flows" were always coming along, with little fruit but much discouragement.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The lack of discernment makes us easy marks for re-branding a "different Christ" into a "new and fresh Christ", which the Madison Avenue types would be envious of. So we need to beware.

That doesn't mean all our experiences were null and void. But we need discernment. We should preach discernment and not just zeal.

You make good points, but remember that our so-called "lack of discernment" is what allowed my heart to be open to the Lord in the first place, and enabled the Spirit of reality to guide me to new places which I had never before even imagined. Hence, it's no wonder that nearly 90% of those who have confessed to be born of the Spirit were actually too young to legally drink when they believed.

Witness Lee pulled a "bait and switch" in the LRM. Initially he brought us back to examine the scriptures for what they really said. Yes, indeed, this part of his ministry was mixed with leaven, but compared to his latter ministry, was far superior. Towards the end, however, his "interpreted" word had, for all intents and purposes, superseded God's own word. Thus our own spiritual discernment was hijacked by Anaheim. Fortunately for those of us in the GLA, we did have a counterbalance to most of Anaheim's craziness.