Faith Healer Becomes New American Idol

Faith Healer Hailed as American Idol!
Wednesday May 24, 2006

Controversial Faith Healer Benny Hinn has defeated Katherine to become the new American Idol.


During his winning duet, "I've Had (the Time of my Life)" from the movie, "Dirty Dancing", several dozen fans unexpectedly collapsed onto the floor and had to be removed by paramedics for safety reasons.

Approximately half of those fans reported feeling a jolt resulting in improved physical characteristics, from unclogged nostrils to being able to jump up and down to being able to touch their toes.

Head Judge, Simon Cowell, said of the incident, "I think he is a counterfeit performer, and these strange phenomina are obviously fake, a result of group hypnosis by our new American Idol."

Reason #2 Why I Changed My Profile

Just a short post here. After a google search of my full name yielded stuff from this CBB blog, I opted to get rid of my last name from the profile! I'm getting geared up for job searches and don't want to chop my foot off unnecessarily. I don't expect an interviewer or HR department lackey to have the time to appreciate my elaborate reasonings before tossing my app in the can. All you people with myspace accounts and other social network sites up that want decent jobs in the future, heed my words!!!

New Mascot - Cute but Controversial

Fellow CBB bloggers -

I found out about the South Park character generator (www.sp-studio.de) from a most unlikely source, Hugh Sung. Hugh is in charge of collaborative piano at Curtis and has a killer blog merging music with technology. On top of this he is a fairly straight-laced guy with amazing social skills so that he does not come off that way. So I was a bit surprised when he wrote this up on his blog.


So I have created my own icon for CBB. I personally have not been smitten with admiration for the show, lately I heard about how Isaac Hayes (Shaft), the voice of "Chef" quit after the directors finally decided to mock his religion, the Church of Scientology. Christianity apparently is a common mock-worthy subject, but I haven't watched the show enough to find out if they are mocking Christ, or just offensive right-wingers. I see plenty of commercials for it and promos and they unfortunately haven't made a favorable impression on me. But ranting about the show, or any show, only tends to make you look bad so I'm not condemning it here... yet!

"The Simpsons" on the other hand is often a rather enjoyable show because it is often able to make this distinction in a way I find more palatable and frankly enjoyable. I saw a clip recently where the Creation vs. Evolution in schools debate was addressed in an extremely tongue-in-cheek manner. I thought it was quite funny.

I think that the South Park-type figure is appropriate for this blog for the time being because it accentuates what this blog is all about and will function as a cheap eyegrabber for roving bloggers and a more culture-friendly persona. Of course I put a cross necklace in there to sort of symbolize the "Christian". The cigarette symbolizes the evils of teenage rebellion. The sword symbolizes the Bible, and the lightsaber symbolizes Using the Force... aka post-modernistic techniques and language.

So what do you think of this little guy?

Double Standards for Christians: Myke's Commentary

A couple text-based shoutouts to new visitors, especially other Eckel family members linked in from the new family website! Welcome to my conflicted blog and brace yourself for some controversy!

Myke's Post
My longtime friend Myke has responded to my last post in which I described the local youth response to the Day of Silence at my old high school. I appreciate all comments (but not spam) and Myke's have really brought up an opportunity to discuss issues especially relevant to the CBB blog, namely, "how are followers of Christ to present ourselves and relate to a broken world with an unpopular message?"

Here's My Response
So Myke, here's my .02. I've condensed your comments and hopefully summarized them effectively. Feel free to counter-respond! (His original comment is under the previous post)


***Most people think that it means that a christian can never say anything that is not somewhat on the harsh side of conveying ideas.

Good point, Myke. If you've been keeping up with the emerging "Religious Left" or certain politicians, this sort of thing is often thrown out there. Doubtless, we could all probably work on our tact and sensitivity but at the end of the day we should be allowed to have our own opinions and "free speech", no matter how people will react. This goes both ways unfortunately in our culture with both extreme left (such as perhaps Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore) and uber-extreme right (such as Fred Phelps, the guy who hates homosexuals and protests military funerals with his followers) have a right to their often insensitive and intolerable views.

When I first transferred out of private religious school in the 10th grade I was dumbfounded by the statement "people can't legislate their morality". I didn't know how to respond! Of course now it is clear as day that you either legislate morality or immorality, and you vote your values, and whatever group wants it more will win.

It is rare to have a role model in the church who can speak uncompromising truth in a non-confrontational way. I did see a few very good examples of this - how rare it is!


***Many times Jesus "very harshly" rebuked his critics calling them "Brood of vipers" or "Your father is the devil". These words came from the Lord of love...

Good point here as well. From my study on this, I notice that Jesus reserved this severe rebuking-type of thing for other religious people such as the Pharisees. When he was with the prostitute, the tax collector, or even the rich guy he found much more sensitive ways of allowing the truth to convict on its own. Sometimes the truth brought a repentance and sometimes it didn't. Strangely enough, I don't recall too many non-religious critics of Jesus.


***If I'm offensive that's one thing, but if truth offends that's something entirely different. We are to speak the truth in love, but if a person's view on love is accept my behavior as ok and not sin, then they leave no room for love because love corrects error.


Again, well stated. Many people seem to think that a sharply delivered truth is somehow invalidated by its difficult delivery. I think that a good strategy is to discern whether someone is interested in the truth at all before engaging any further. I also do not accept responsibility or religious pressure to engage someone who might not be receptive. But I have seen too many people further antagonized by excessive zeal and a quicker-witted Christian. But I'll pray a whole lot for them and ask God to make truth clear. As for the false dichotomy of love = acceptance of a behavior, or tolerance = acceptance of behavior, I would possibly gently address that and later pray off the blinders, or just not bother to explain and go straight to prayer later!

I remember during a previous presidential scandal a similar blinder for people was forgiveness = dismissal of consequences, or forgiveness = amnesty. Not quite, as God will forgive even a child molester who repents, but the person will nonetheless be held accountable. I'm not going to expound about the female teacher scandals of late that question the former statement.


***At times we must engage in heated debates or you and I will suddenly [lose] our 1st amendment right of freedom of religion and the "exercise thereof" by it being redefined as hate speech...

Here I would agree more with the second part than the first. If people who value free speech and freedom of religion neglect their responsibility to vote, there is a substantial possibility/probability that our freedoms will be curtailed. Actually we have an even greater need to pray also! Debates will also be probable for many of us especially in grassroots places such as the school board meeting, local council meetings, etc... My current policy is to try to be a bridge-builder one-on-one with people while voting my values and politely pestering my elected officials concerning how I would like them to represent me. But there in the end will be conflict, especially one-on-one, but hopefully I can remain civil rather than heated. Easier said than done, definitely.


***The flesh will never ever listen to reason, logic, love, kindness etc... that is why God says it must be crucified.

Yep, the flesh is a nasty bugger. The flesh is a constant thing to deal with, but only followers of Christ have access to the supernatural flesh-crucifying power. Those outside of this commitment tragically have few resources beyond Tony Robbins self-help tapes, motivational seminars, and the Franklin-Covey store. Unfortunately I submit that the flesh is a more relevant issue/argument for followers of Christ than for society at large.


***No matter how much kindness you display, it just simply will not work with some who is hellbent on living in the flesh.

Also true. Even though Jesus paid for everybody, most of us won't take Him up on the offer. It is frustrating to think about. Lately though, my favorite verses deal with the topic, especially the phrase, "while we were sinners, Christ died for us" and "Don't you know that God's kindness leads us to repentance?" Romans 5 is a great chapter, and the prodigal father is a relevant figure here, thank God. Dwelling on these passages restores my perspecive.

With my religious background, I easily can assume responsibility to somehow make sure that people are 100% sure of their condition so they can do something about it. While not abdicating all degree of responsibility to that end, a less confrontional but biblical mandate for repentance is ultimately woven into the message of God's love for us. One of the most important things I learned in Cleveland was the so-called relational evangelism, and I don't even want to use the "e" word. But that's what it is. "Helping people belong before they believe" was how Gerald Coates described it at a conference. The trite moniker, "people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care" is also apt.


***...after all other forms of presenting the Gospel (Love, kindness, friendship evangelism, so on) have been exhausted, I do support the "hellfire and brimstone" message, even with a pointed finger and a scowl look. Don't ask me about my experiences with that one (ha ha)

Hellfire & Brimstone definitely gets the job done for some people, at least outwardly. It had a significant role in America's big revivals of the 18th century from what I studied. The imagery and associations to "H&B" certainly stick in people's minds as the de facto stereotype of preachers today.

Religious people are supposed to be somewhat stern, Bible-thumping moralists proclaiming the God of "thou shalt not". "Bible-basher", "holier-than-thou", "goody two-shoes", and other unflattering names often describe how well people get the wrong message that is hopefully unintentionally conveyed.

I think perhaps a lot of people since the revivals have adopted this simple message and have effectively used it without also cultivating a deep sensitivity to the endless compassion that prompted Jesus to the cross. It certainly is a common starting point, and it worked for me back in '79 when my grandmother cornered me. I was one scared little dude! But it wasn't all bad since I get to claim that I was part of the Jesus movement. One Way, dude! Hey, dude is that Freedom Rock? ...Then turn it up, man!!! (pardon the 80's time/life music ad reference)


Thanks Myke for the commentary, and I'm going to open this up for your possible rebuttal and other perspectives, this is a blog after all. How about you theologians out there? One caveat: please read my responses in the spirit with which they are offered if you have a nit to pick! Thanks again Myke for the word.