No Deal

Allow me to break from the status quo by briefly examining one of the most compelling, dramatic, and worst television shows on the air today. I'm aware that I could be describing many shows by using those three words, but the show that's on my mind having just watched it on More 4 (incidentally, can anything good come out of More 4?) is 'Deal or No Deal'. I understand that to most of my readers this show is completely foreign, or at least the UK version is, so I'm alienating quite a few of you, but since this is my blog and all I'm going to be self indulgent just this once (not counting that time I wrote half a recap on One Tree Hill of course...or the countless other times I've been self indulgent).

If you've ever watched 'Deal or No Deal', see if you can identify with some of these observations:

1 - Noel Edmunds is the sleaziest man to ever live. Everything about him just oozes sleaze - that golden/grey hair of his slicked back, those cowboy-esque boots he wears, the tight jeans, the flashy shirts, the endless flirting with anything resembling a woman. He's got it all. Of course this makes him perfect for his role as host of the most uncultured show on television since, um, Noel's House Party [?], but you just can't help feeling the need for a long shower after having watched him slither about for 40 minutes, nor can you help fearing that one day you'll turn into him and start chatting up your college-aged nieces and doing other such slimy, pervy things. This isn't to say that Noel Edmunds chats up his nieces, but if I told you he did would it surprise you?

Noel has obviously not had the easiest ride in life, so I'm not going to be too harsh on him (though I fear I may be guilty of that already). After all, he seems to be maturing a bit when it comes to women, which is evidenced by Wikipedia's comment that "Edmonds has recently stated that he is not ready to get seriously involved in a relationship so soon after his second divorce". Granted that's a bit like Steve Stauton saying that San Marino have tightened up their defense by only conceding 8 goals as opposed to the 13 they shipped in the previous game, but at least both Noel and San Marino are on the right track, right?

One other slightly odd thing on his Wiki page is found under the 'Personal Life' section. We're told there that "Edmonds has commented in favour of stricter immigration policies in the United Kingdom, feeling that the country is "full", as well as building more prisons and reducing crime and youth violence". May I ask, does anyone actually care what Noel Edmunds, presenter of the tacky gameshow Deal or No Deal, has to say on topics such as immigration policy, infrastructure, and crime? I sincerely doubt it. The only opinions we want to hear from Noel Edmunds are those that deal directly with Deal or No Deal, and even then he should keep those to a minimum.

2 - There's always a fat guy amongst the 22 contestants who's the "strategy expert". He's usually old - you know, been through it all before; seen everything - and whenever there's a decision to be made, he'll provide the "sage" insight that apparently everyone else on the show is completely oblivous to.

For example, if there are 5 boxes left, 4 of which are medium sized and one of which is the £250, 000, he'll say to the person playing the game something along the lines of "You have to be careful, because if you knock off the 250, 000 you won't be in as strong a position, so think long and hard about this decision". By adding that last part, he makes it seem as if what he has just said has opened up a whole can of worms, when in reality he's just done what I like to call a Borris Becker, i.e. stated the bleeding obvious.

The person playing the game will nod their head knowingly of course, as if they understand the profoundness what the "strategy expert" just said, and thus will take their time in making this difficult decision, when in reality they know what exactly they're going to do as soon as the options are made available. Am I accusing Deal or No deal of conjuring up tension and drama out of nowhere? Never!

3 - There's always a gay guy on the show, and he always does something wacky and gay. (As a sidenote, he's usually hit on by Noel Edmunds.)

4 - You can expect to see at least one moderately attractive woman on the show, though as soon as she begins saying things your attraction to her quickly turns into blinding hatred, where you'd give anything for her to walk away with the 1p box.

5 - 90% of the people who play the game are the most annoying, idiotic people you're ever likely to see on television. It's as if they just take 22 of the guests on the Jeremy Kyle Show and drag them on to the set of Deal or No Deal so that they can inflict further misery on all who watch daytime TV (of which I am a chief offender). They're the kind of people who shout a lot, get excited over nothing, and act as if nothing in life phases them. Even when they go from having the opportunity of banking £30, 000 to having to decide between banking £30 or risking it for a full £50, they'll maintain their defiance and treat the banker as if he's a moron, when in reality he's just dooped them out of 30, 000 quid. They'll put on an 'I don't care' face and lap up Noel's flirtacious houndings, while their timid significant other sits in the crowd wondering how they ever got involved with such a repulsive dimwit.

Unfortunately, when things go well for such a person you can expect to see much kissing, hugging, promises of streaking, talking of holidays to Ibiza, and from the overweight women, that frantic arm-waving which leaves the tricep area flapping to and fro in what has to be one of the most unattractive sights you're ever likely to witness. However, does is turn Noel Edmunds off? One can only hope so, because if not this, then what!?

Despite all these things, and many, many others, there is something so addictive about Deal or No Deal. If you don't nip it in the bud and change the channel before you care about nothing other than seeing Charlene walking away with the minimum amount of money possible, then you're in for 40 minutes of pain and personal anguish which will leave you in need of nothing short of a shower and a prolonged dose of The Wire to cleanse you and to restore your faith in both people and television.

ESV, 1 - 2 - 3

In case you're not yet aware, there is a new Bible on the shelves now that basically makes all the other Bibles out there redundant. Here is what some of the biggest Christian leaders of our time may or may not be saying about it:

"The ESV Study Bible is the only resource you need to be a godly person. It's so good that I'm seriously beginning to question our need for the Holy Spirit."

"I've been reading the ESV since 1987, over 10 years before it was actually written. And while I haven't actually read any of this new study Bible, I just wanted to make people aware that I've been reading the ESV long before it became the cool thing to do, so there."

"If you don't own the ESV Study Bible, then you may be going to hell."

"If you want to know what the Bible really means, then you have no choice but to rely on the interpretations of the people who wrote the ESV Study Bible. They are right, and if you don't agree with them, then you are wrong."

"As a Pastor, I won't let anyone inside my church unless they've got a copy of the ESV Study Bible, leather bound preferable. I mean how else are they going to grow as Christians if they don't have this essential resource?"

"The ESV Study Bible is the second coming."

"The ESV Study Bible forgave me my sins and imparted its righteousness to me."


OK so none of these are actual quotes, but my point is, calm down conservative Christian world! This isn't a new Bible. We're still using the same one as our forefathers did centuries ago, and I assume these solid group of Christians whom Mark Driscoll trusts haven't come up with any new interpretations. I know none of the people in the video below or in some of the articles I've read share any of the fake sentiments listed above, but I think the hype surrounding this Bible has been just a tad OTT. As Charles Price says,

"The Bible is true, but it's not the truth - Jesus is the truth."

The Pharisees believed that the Bible was true, but that wasn't enough. They missed the fact that it pointed to the truth, which is Jesus. I wrote the following down during my "Life of Christ" class with Dr Autry in relation to the Pharisees:

"The students of the Scriptures had the subject of the Scriptures right in front of them, but they didn't recognise Him."

We must be careful that we don't make the same vital mistake, even with a great resource like the ESV Study Bible.

All that said, I've got a copy of the ESV Study Bible coming my way. I mean just take a look at this video and tell me you don't want one:

Oh Me Oh My

I was directed towards a song by my discerning sister a few days ago (note: I didn't say critical...I said 'discerning'. Completely different [?]). She recited some lyrics from said song and I basically looked at her with an expression that said "What the mess are you talking about?". Well, to help you understand my utter confusion, here are the words she said:

So take me as You find me, All my fears and failures, Fill my life again. I give my life to follow Everything I believe in, Now I surrender.

I didn't recognise the song from these verses, but I had heard it before. It's called 'Mighty to Save', and it appears to be the latest big hit to come from the small, underground ministry that is Hillsong. They're flying below the radar at the moment, but I'm sure you'll hear of them soon enough. Lets just hope that they don't sell out and start putting on big concert-type worship sessions that perhaps do little but appeal to people's emotions. It would be a shame if that were to happen.

OK so I'm being exaggerative for the sake of sarcasm (**slaps his own hand and vows to get back to the point**). The point of this is to show you just how confusing these lyrics are. Before I do that, there are some positives to be taken from this song, so all is not lost. The chorus is incredibly catchy, and I do like its words also. However, if ever a song was built around a strong chorus, this is it.

The way I imagine it is that Mr Morgan was inspired with this great chorus, and performed it for people to much delight. His listener's then asked "That's great Reuben, but what about the verses?", to which he replied - "Don't worry, I've got them covered. Now, if someone could pass me my book of Christian cliches I'd be much obliged." I could go on and tell you that Darlene Zschech had actually borrowed Reuben's book to write a new album of her own, but I fear I'd be labouring my point.

In examing the meaning of these couple of verses, allow me to make a fairly obvious observation by quoting them again, with emphasis added:

So take me as You find me,
All my fears and failures,
Fill my life again.

I give my life to follow
Everything I believe in,
Now I surrender.

Dare I say, typical Hillsong?

Then there's the actual meaning, which for the most part escapes me. The first line "Take me as You find me" is a popular Christian catchphrase, but it's pretty redundant if you ask me. I mean how else is God supposed to "take" us? There are instances when a similar phrase works however. For example, there is a song which goes, "You take me as I am, and You make me as You are". In this case, that phrase works, a) because it is indicative and b) because of the contrast it sets forth. In 'Mighty to Save' however, no such contrast exists, and it just doesn't work for me.

The state the singer finds himself in is in a state of fear and failure, which isn't the most positive thing for a Christian church to affirm corporately. As a personal confession, these words are no doubt true in people's lives at different times, but in Christ we are not known as failures. Not because of merit on our side, but because of merit on His side. You could argue that the line "Fill my life again", is a plea, asking for us to be filled with this truth again, to be filled with the perfect love that drives out fear. You really have to read between the lines to come up with this conclusion however, because nothing more is said. Had the next verse expanded on what we need to be filled with, I wouldn't have many problems. But instead, it begins with a completely new train of thought, and not a very solid one either.

From being in a place of fear and failure, the singer now decides that "I give my life to follow everything I believe in", proving the point that while Christians may not tell lies, they certainly sing them. But apart from this being unattainable, it's probably not the best thing to do anyway. For example, some professing Christians "don't believe" in no sex before marriage. I don't say this to judge, but to illustrate that it's probably best to give ourselves to what God believes rather than what we believe, for what we believe isn't always true and right. Now I'm not saying that Reuben Morgan is encouraging us to go with our own desires, but the lyrics are ambiguous, which is a dangerous thing. By saying "I give myself to follow everything I believe in", what are you affirming? Very little if you ask me.

The verse then finishes with a line that contradicts the previous two. Having just sung that we're going to give oursleves to things we ourselves believe in, we now sing that we surrender? Huh? Surrender to ourselves? That's the meaning that makes sense given the context, but it certainly doesn't make scriptural sense. I assume this means that "I surrender to God", but why do the previous two lines point to a different conclusion? So many questions, so few answers in these lyrics.

In short, it's not a good sign that if you just read these two verses without any knowledge of where they came from, then there would be nothing substantial to affirm beyond doubt that they are taken from a worship song. Read them again if you don't believe me. Should the verses of our songs really be so shallow, void of lyrics that explicitly point to God?

Such verses follow a similar pattern to a Nooma DVD - ambiguous to the point of having little true meaning. Once again though, I have to give credit where credit is due. The chorus really is quite good, but the verses...well...not so much (the first two which I haven't quoted aren't much better to be honest). Bob Kauflin may just have it right when it comes to Hillsong - strong on the musical side, weak on the lyrical side, and heavy on the subjective side. That about sums this song up I think.

Funny

I stumbled across the above picture on this blog, and I gave a good chuckle when I looked up the verses. Here's James 4:9 and Philippians 4:4 to save you the bother of looking them up yourself. See how kind I am?

The Christian Facebook Group

Look at me, trying to do anything but finish my assignment on The Person of Christ. It's like that time I learned how to play Snakebite Boogie by Clive Carroll, just to avoid doing my final year project. And let me tell you, there are few more difficult songs to learn than it. I've known how to play it for two years now, and I can still only manage to make it sound about 60% right, which kind of sucks actually. Because even though what I'm doing is in reality very difficult, it just doesn't sound quite right, so it's difficulty is lost on people, and I don't look as impressive a guitarist as I should. In other news, I'm both proud and self-seeking.

Anyway, my quick post here is in relation to that Facebook group that's doing the rounds. It's called The Great Big Christians In Ireland Experiment (Christians on Facebook). The 'experiment' is to try and get all the Christians in Ireland, who are also on Facebook, into one group. Well, I've decided not to join this group for a couple of reasons:

1 - I think it would be cool to be the only Christian in Ireland (who is also on Facebook) not to be in the group. I mean I'd basically be the reason for this experiment failing. That sounds like a good conversation piece in any Christian setting.

2 - I'm really stubborn.

3 - Here's my real reason. I just feel like it's slightly misleading. There are 1007 people in the group now, but who's to say they are all Christians? I have no reason to believe they aren't but I have no reason to believe they are either. The only ones I know to be Christian are the ones that I know personally. That's not to say you can't know someone is a Christian if you don't know them personally. It's just to say that a mere profession isn't exactly worth much. I mean if you ask every American whether they're Christian or not you'll probably find a significantly large portion say they are, yet the behaviour of American society in general would seem to suggest otherwise (not to pick on America or anything [?]).

A group like this just reminds me of those forwards that say 'Pass this on to all your friends if you're not ashamed of Jesus' or something like that. What's the point? Jesus obviously isn't overly concerned about lip service and such. Maybe I'm wrong, but I happen to think that His goal for the Church isn't one big Facebook group with every Christian on it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. There's just something...off about that picture, but maybe it's just me. I mean what's next? A Facebook application that provides you with your daily devotional?

I know the point of this experiment isn't to show our non-Christian friends that we're Christian. This group was probably started out of a good heart, and most people join it not to prove that they are Christian, but because they are Christians, they are on Facebook, so why not accept the invitation? The whole thing just seems a bit pointless to me, but hey, if people are using this group to pray for each other and encourage each other and so forth, then far be it from me to diss it. From the 'Recent News' section however, it seems like a numbers game so far, but there's one number you're not going to get Mr Nelson!

Become A Moussier You

I got a forward a couple of weeks ago asking me to sign a petition to prevent, among others, Joel Osteen from being taken off some radio channel or something. My first thought was of course, 'Prevent!?' I was severely tempted to write back to everyone on the mailing list and let my thoughts on Joel Osteen be known, but I didn't think that would be right.

So instead, I'm going to take a little interview with Joel in which he discusses the finer points of his *gulp* bestseller 'Becoming a Better You', and examine it thoroughly. Here's the link for the video:

Joel Osteen - Become a Greasier You

The interview is done by Borders, a massive bookstore chain in America, with apprantly very low standards. The name of the actual person conducting the interview is not revealed, so I'm going to call him Kyle. He looks like a Kyle.

Anyway, Kyle opens the interview up by saying 'We're here today with Pastor Joel Osteen...'. The madness begins, and we're only 2 seconds into the interview. Joel Osteen may be a lot of things, none of which I shall utter here, but a pastor is not one of them, simply because his gatherings in that ridiculously large arena no more constitute a church than a taping of Dr Phil does. I mean who makes these guys pastors? I say what the Evangelical Church needs to do is appoint one man to be the head of the Church, declare him to be infallible, and leave all the big decisions to him. And that man should be Charles Price. What could possibly go wrong? It's not like this kind of church hierarchy has caused problems or divisions in the past...[?].

We're told the title of Osteen's book is 'Becoming a Better You: 7 Keys to Improving Your Life Everyday'. Does he think that having it be 7 keys makes it more Christian? Probably. I could stop right here and go on for lengths about the folly of such a title, but all in good time my friends.

Osteen's first words are "Oh I took playsher in appreciatin' whut you guys are doin' for us, an I'm jus enjoyin' the tam", having been thanked for appearing in this in-no-way-contrived interview. What Joel means by this is anyone's guess, but he says it with shiny white teeth on display and a southern accent in full swing, so it must be something friendly, warm, and heartfelt.

Kyle says that Osteen's first book (I know I know - He's written two books? But then so has Jordan! I mean even Jaap Stam has a book out there people!), 'Your Best Life Now', was 'um, a phenomenal bestseller'. I like the way he paused as if he was about to say it was a great book, but then realised that he just couldn't say that with a straight face, so he decided to stick with the facts. The facts in this case being that 'Your Best Life Now' has sold over 4 million copies, which means roughly half the people in Osteen's church now own it.

Kyle then asks a valid question - one that is probably on your mind right now. If Osteen has already released a book entitled 'Your Best Life Now', then what the heck does he need to release a second book for? Hasn't he already given his gullible audience the solution to their 'best life' dilemma? Kyle doesn't quite phrase it like this, but that's the gist of it.

Osteen's answer is simple - "I wanned the money". Oh wait. Sorry. I'm quoting what Osteen was thinking. My bad. (I'm a horrible cynic I know, but I'm confident God will sanctify me one of these days.)

What he says is...deep breath..."Well...it...it...basically...I wanned ta...I filt lak payple needed ta keep growin'; we all should keep growin', and thet's whut the book is abowet...'

He says that 'Your Best Life Now' was 'a lot about enlargin' your veeeeshun, and thangs like thet, but this book is abowet whut can we do evry dye to become better...'

So in other words, his first book really didn't help anyone to live their 'best life now', and was thus a complete waste of money (and to think I was so close to buying it). However, Joel has corrected that slight error in the first book by releasing this new book that does actually tell us how to live our best life now. Do we have any reason to believe him? Is Joel Osteen's hair natural? The answer to both those questions, is no.

Joel actually addresses the contradiction in book titles by jokingly asking 'Once you've leeuved your best laf, whut can you do?' Well he answers his own question by saying 'In the book (that's the new book) we talk abowet how you do thet - through better habits, better relytionsheeups, better thinking'. Oh good, because I thought he was gonna be vague about this.

What he more or less openly says is that his first book doesn't tell you how to live your best life, which kind of makes it a bit useless if you ask me. I guess he just figures that any idiot who would possibly buy his first book has done so already, so there's no financial harm in rubbishing it and telling people they need to go out and buy the second installment. In fact there's only financial gain to be had by making such a claim, but I'm sure Joel wasn't thinking of that at the time [?].

Kyle then loses my support, as he compliments some aspects of this book (which obviously means he read it - a major no no, Kyle), specifically the stories Joel tells and the way he can communicate on the level of the common man, by including self-deprecating anecdotes which reveal that Joel himself is still learning. Oh that's Joel Osteen alright - the man with the common touch.

"I think that's part of whut Gods blessed us weeuth, is that I don't know it all -- I said it out there todye..." This is where Joel and I agree. God has indeed blessed us all by not making Joel Osteen the source of all knowledge; the one whom we should emulate. Could you imagine if He had? It would certainly be a lucrative time to be a purveyor of hair mousse and fake tan, that's for sure.

Joel then begins to...um...well...the line 'Red, I do believe you're talking out of your ass' comes to mind. After taking a few nice words like 'practical', 'growing' and 'relate' and meshing them together to form a largely incoherent sentence, we finally get to the meat and veg of this book. The part that explains the solid foundations on which this book is built. The part where Joel gives us an incite into what lies beneath.

"It's not some fancy doctrine or sumthin'; thase are thangs we cen do evry dye."

In other words, what Joel is telling us is that this isn't a book based on Biblical doctrine and sound teaching from the Word of God. Those 'fancy doctrines' don't really have any practical application to our daily lives didn't you know. However what Joel doesn't appear to realise is that he himself is presenting doctrine in this book. He's giving his readers a set ot teachings to adhere to if they want to become better Jesus' people. It may not be 'fancy' doctrine or truthful doctrine, but it's doctrine nonetheless. And what's more, it's the kind of doctrine that 4 million people will pay money to read about, sadly. (Only in America, eh?)

Joel adds that some people give him some grief over the simplicity of his unfancy doctrine. They say 'Well I already knew that'. Oh dear. If the kind of people who read these books already know what you're teaching, then calling it 'simple' is a massive understatement. The words 'obvious', 'common sense', and 'duh' come to mind. In my head, 'Becoming a Better You' contains things like this:

"Key #3 - Relationships. If you want better relytionsheeups, then you should tra talkin' to people more. Whin I don't talk to people as much as I should, I don't have good relytionsheeups. But when I talk more, I have better relytionsheeups, and I become a better may.

Key #4 - Habits. If you want better habits, then you nade to stop practicin' your bad habits, and start practicin' some good ones. I used to park ma SUV on the far sad of the road, but now I park it on the near sad, makin' thangs easier for may and ma waf, and makin' may a better person as a result."

(Notice the way this is both practical, self-depracating, Bible-free, and when you read it you go 'Duh', thus ticking all 4 boxes.)

There's so much more I could comment on from this 7 minute clip, but since the fact that it is complete nonsense is so obvious, I think I'd be wasting my time, and your time too. Plus, it's just too painful to have to listen to Joel talk, not to mention write it all down, so I'm going to spare my own sanity.

Joel Osteen personifies the word 'magoo'. There's no better word to describe him or his kind. I don't even know if I'd call him a heretic, because he's so far removed from the gospel that it would almost be like calling Dr Phil or Tony Robinson heretics. Then again, Joel does operate under the guise of a pastor, and he brings God into the equation whenever he feels the need (which really isn't that often, thankfully), so there has to be at least something heretical about him.

Then again, maybe there's a place for Joel in the Church Of Jesus Christ. Real pastors can take care of all that 'fancy doctrine', and Osteen can take care of the practical applications. Think of a tag-team consisting of R.C. Sproul and Joel Osteen:

Sproul - "The Holy Spirit indwells the believer, working to bring about a more righteous life and heart. We must be careful, however, not to confuse the indwelling Spirit with any deification of the individual. The Spirit is in the believer and works with the believer, but does not become the believer."

Osteen - "Thenk you R.C.. Whut thet manes in practical tuuurms is that way nade to become better payple by having better habits, better relytionsheeups, and better thinking. For example, this one tam, ma waf and I..."

If I know R.C. Sproul like I think I do, he'd definitely be up for that.

Bent Toddley

There have been countless writings about the Lakeland revival since God (read: Todd Bentley) started working there a few months ago. So many in fact that I wasn't going to bother adding to the mix. But then what fun would that be?

However, I'm not going to go into all the theological aspects of it. For one, there's hardly any theology to the whole thing in the first place, so trying to discuss it would be like trying to talk about football based on a basketball game (that analogy doesn't make any sense, does it? Meh, I tried). And what's more, I'm no theology expert to begin with, so for that kind of reasoning it's best that you go to a more reliable source than this humble blog of mine.

What I do want to do is take a youtube clip I've just watched and give my two cents.

Just so you know, I didn't type 'Wacky Todd Bentley rubbish heresy fake' into the youtube search engine in order to find the most contraversial clip out there (although remind me to do that later). I simply searched 'Todd Bentley' and this clip was one of the results. And what's more, this clip appears to have been posted by someone who has some sort of respect for the work that is going on in Lakeland (I'm saying this because of the title and the description). All in all, I think this is a fairly neutral clip to examine, and from all the bits I've seen on God TV etc it's a reasonably accurate depiction of what's happening in Florida (why is it always Florida?).

Unfortunately, the worship leader who looks like John Travolta isn't in it, but you can't have everything I guess. Although you can put a picture of him up on your blog for poops and giggles.



Ahhh, that's better. Anyway, here's a link for the clip:

Wacky Todd Bentley Rubbish Fake Heresy

And so it begins. "How do you know you're healed?" Bentley asks the woman on stage. "I'm not sure 100%, but..." is the response. I bet he gets that answer a lot, does Todd. However, Bentley recovers quickly from this little setback and swiftly drops the woman to the floor, thus rendering her incapable of saying anything further that might expose this 'miracle' as a hoax. Thinking on your feet, Todd. I like that. Thankfully, he didn't get her to the floor by kneeing her in the stomach as he's been 'called' to do on special occassions, so phew for that.

(If you've watched the clip, isn't that noise the woman makes as she falls to the floor so funny!? Just watch it again. I've watched it like 7 times and it still cracks me up.)

We're then informed that someone is been healed of broken eye disease. Well, not quite. Bentley 'almost' wants to call it a broken eye, which it isn't at all. What he's actually describing is the socket behind the eye being fixed and what have you. And even more specific, it's the socket around the 'right eye'. I bet there was one guy in the crowd that had the exact same problem around his left eye who was just like 'Ah crap!', and stormed out in a huff.

Bentley wants this person to step forth, and then goes on to say that he 'just had one of those visions'. The kind of vision he's describing is where he sees one particular person get healed. However, two people actually come up on stage, I'm assuming to claim that their eye is no longer broken, or something.

I wonder how Todd explains the inaccuracy of this vision, since, you know, his vision was for one specific person? Maybe it was a special-offer vision, like 'have a vision of one person healed, and get another person healed absolutely free'.

Or maybe, just maybe, one of these people is faking it. I say a Solomon-like test is in order here. What Todd Bentley should do is knee them both in their left eye, and whichever one can still see out of their right eye is the true miracle receiver. Makes sense, doesn't it? Hopefully Todd will then get 'one of those visions' where he sees people with left eye problems being healed, and things will be as you were before the test was carried out, with no harm done.

No such test is carried out of course, so what we have is two people claiming to be healed, one of whom has a patch over her left eye [?]. More on that later.

But first, Todd interviews possibly the dumbest man alive. Think guest on the Jerry Springer Show and you're in the right ballpark. Todd asks him who he is, and he doesn't actually appear to know. Maybe I'm wrong, but a damaged eye appears to be the least of this man's concerns.

Todd asks him if he 'broke his eye'. Too funny, but it gets even better. Todd continues by asking him if he's blind or if there's nerve damage, or if there's anything wrong with his eye at all. First off, blind? Blind!? Didn't Todd already say that this is not a case of a broken eye, and that his vision was for that of socket repair? Yes, he did. I'm no medical practitioner, but I'm fairly confident that blindness is as a result of damaged eyes, therefore that's not the issue at hand. Maybe that's why Todd calls these visions 'open visions'. As in they're open to whatever interpretation fits the situation at hand.

Of course maybe Todd asks all his guests...er, I mean receivers of miracles, if they're blind, regardless of the vision he received. It could be an oral disclaimer of some form, so that if God calls Todd to kick someone in the face, then at least he's made himself aware of that persons current eye-sight status, lest he be duped by an already-blind person and sued for millions. Blind people, eh? You just can't trust them. There's a lesson here kids - it's always good to cross your t's and dot your, um, lower case j's (Oh Wayne's World II, how I love you).

Anyway, this mans socket got damaged when 'a car hit [him] on a bicycle'. I bet it was a parked car, wasn't it? We don't actually get to see his right eye, which makes me a little suspicious. Also, the lady with the patch on her (left) eye is smiling the whole time, which leads me to believe that his face isn't horribly disfigured or anything. Either that, or she's incredibly insensitive. Or maybe she actually is blind, in which case watch out Todd. This one could be up to something, so make sure you ask her the question.

Todd then says that a creative miracle is about to happen, and 'Boom!', Bentley sends him to the floor. Didn't Todd say that the miracle has already happened during that vision speech of his? Shouldn't this guy already be healed? Wasn't he called up to the stage to proclaim the miracle that Todd had just witnessed in one of these 'open visions' of his? Maybe it's like a visualisation type thing, where Todd first sees the miracle, and then a few minutes later it happens. Hey, I'm just brainstorming here.

Of course a cynic might say that Todd just makes these visions up in his head, some idiot from the crowd responds/is dragged to the stage by Todd's henchmen, and then a whole bunch of hokey-pokey madness ensues. I mean these cynics probably want 'medical proof' of the miracles too. Why can't they just have faith and believe that everything being done is authentic? Why this need to 'test the spirits'? I mean where did they even get that idea? Not from any source Todd Bentley knows about, that's for sure.

The woman with the patch over her (left) eye is next in the firing line, as Todd Bentley points out to her 'You've still got the patch on'. It's keen insights like this that give merit to all that Todd Bentley is doing.

The woman goes on to say that 'I had a brain tumor, it was right behind my eye...' but before she can actually flesh out her story and more than likely contradict Todd's open vision, he interrupts, saying 'The Lord is gonna do a miracle right now' and gentley guides her to the floor (not pushes...gentley guides [?]), which apparently is the only way in which a miracle can take place.

"My job is to see, my job is to pray, and then God does the rest." And how much do you get paid for this job, Todd? Just curious. OK I'm being too cynical. Open mind, Dec. Open mind.

"Sometimes the miracles are instant, but like that woman who came out of the wheelchair, sometimes it takes two/three days." That sounds suspiciously like another oral disclaimer, with Todd basically saying that if you're not healed at this meeting then be patient and give it a couple of days, by which time you'll hopefully be far away from Lakeland and unable to complain to anyone about not receiving any healing.

A woman who was prayed for earlier then begins to leave the stage, but is stopped in her tracks by Todd, who kindly says 'Come here, you with the growth' (as she's affectionately called by friends and loved ones). I really hope this isn't how Todd addresses all his flock - by their respective sicknesses. "Hey you with the brain tumor, get over here." "Where do you think you're going, you with the mangled legs?" "See ya later, syphilis." Insensitive much?

Anyway, Todd asks this lady if she can feel anything. He asks this while tickling her throat, so I'm guessing she can, Todd. He stops tickling her and asks "can you feel any sensation?" We get a pause for about 7 seconds and the woman lets out a quiet "Ummm...no." Brilliant!

Todd then uses the Benny Hinn-approved method of putting words in peoples mouth by 'asking' "Did you feel a burning on the floor, or what were you doing on the floor?" The woman says that she did feel burning [Glory Hallelujah!], but only in her arms and hands (presumably the growth is on her throat).

Todd then ushers her to the floor for a second helping, saying 'That growth will be gone. Check it in the mirror." Aha. So Todd does encourage the verification of his miracles. And not only that, he's also urging people to use the most rigorous, fool-proof device of them all - a mirror. Basically, if you don't see it, then you're healed.

- "But Todd, how do you know I was healed?"

(Todd holds up a mirror to the persons face)

- "Well, can you see your lung cancer?"

- "Um, no, but.."

- "But what!? You've been healed!"

OK so I'm blowing things way out of proportion here. I just thought the 'check it in the mirror' line was hilarious.

Next we have a man whom Todd 'called out by word of knowledge the other day', or so says David Tate, one of Todd's henchmen. Tate says that this man has been healed of shoulder problems, and also Todd's word of knowledge about financial blessing has come to pass, because 'God is prospering him'. How do we know that his latest paycheck hasn't just gone through? What is this prosperity that you speak of, Mr Tate?

Todd wonders how he managed to call this guy out, and the guy just says that Todd mentioned his blue shirt (which he's wearing again today [?]). He describes Todd's vision for him, where an angel came and touched his shoulders, and then a ball of fire came out of heaven and gave him some sort of burning sensation. (I would have payed serious money for John Travolta look-a-like to start singing 'Goodness gracious, great balls of fire!" right then. Serious money.)

Anyway, ridiculous story short, this man's shoulders appear to be functioning normally, although all we have to go on is the fact that he can move them around for about 5 seconds. Who's to say he couldn't have done that a couple of days ago? I say get the mirror out. It's the only sure way to know what's what.

Busted shoulder guy continues talking about his problems, but Todd just starts shaking his head and says that he can still feel that fireball. This whole thing is just hilarious to watch, because it's perfectly obvious that Bentley isn't listening to a word that this man is saying, but busted shoulder guy has no idea and just stays talking.

Todd then rushes over to him, places his hands on the guys stomach and goes 'Bam!'. Finally the guy stops talking, but he was too busy talking to realise that this is the moment in which he's supposed to fall on the ground. Todd is a persistent man though, so he's not giving up just yet.

He goes in for a second bam now that the guy is aware of what's going on, but this doesn't get him to the floor either. Um, what's going on here Todd? Why isn't this working?

Not to worry. Todd starts on this big rant about, you guessed it, fireballs, angels, visions etc etc. Not Jesus though, because on the spiritual food chain, apparently fireballs trump Jesus. Who knew?

The rant finishes with the sentence "God's gonna mess up your theological box." God, Todd - who knows? The point is, your theology is going to be totally screwed up, and it may take years to recover from it. Eventually the man falls to the floor, presumably dazed from all the crap he just heard. Todd's work here is done. Neeeext.

"Somebody broke the bones on the top of their right foot..."

I bet there's this guy who had that exact same problem with his left foot who just...

And that's how this little clip ends. We don't get to see what happens next, but I'm presuming about 3 people came up on stage, one of whom had a big cast on their left leg. They all end up on the floor, and they each receive one of those miracles that takes two or three days to kick in.

In closing, I know I've been really, REALLY harsh with this piece. I just have so little time for things like this. I believe in miracles, absolutely. But they're signs, as well as being initial manifestations of God's kingdom. They're not the be all and end all. Here's a verse from John's gospel just to confirm as much:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

A sign always points to something. I mean that's the very definition of a sign. It appears to me that Todd Bentley's ministry is all about miracles (the validity of which I feel I'm right to question), and very little of it has to do with people coming to a saving faith in Christ Jesus, and having life in His name.

A lot of people are sitting on the fence with regards this movement. However, I'm never really one for fence sitting, so I'm more than happy to say that I don't think it's a good thing whatsoever. I'm willing for God to open my eyes if I'm wrong, but right now I firmly believe that this is doing so much more damage than good for the kingdom of God.

Can any good come out of it? Yes, of course. I'm sure there's a very tiny amount of good coming out of Benny Hinn's wild crusades too, but that doesn't make them right.

There is a passage in Philippians where Paul talks about people preaching from wrong motives etc, but that he still rejoices because Christ is being preached regardless.

However, I would assume this to mean that there were no strong doctrinal errors being taught. The same cannot be said for ministries such as Bentley's and others of similar ilk. I may be wrong, but I can imagine Paul having a very Galatian-esque letter lined up for Todd Bentley and co.

Are these guys preaching Christ in all His fullness? It doesn't look like it, and I see that as great cause for concern. To anyone reading this who isn't a Christian, Todd Bentley is not what Christianity is all about. Check the post below this one for some proper teaching, and avoid Todd Bentley.

One Tree Hill

Here's half of a recap I just wrote for an episode of One Tree Hill. You may enjoy it, or you may have no interest. The other half will be up soon, so I don't want dozens of you people leaving me comments demanding to see it now. Be patient, OK?

Anyway, here's the link to the recap:

One Tree Hill - An Expose

Enjoy...and feel free to comment on this or anything else that you've read.