Groan, 3rd page death.

delete - I missed the point and said something incomprehensible

G’day Rowan

Well, guess who was on the ground when you all flew over?

Me too !

craig

[quote author="Ben Palmer"]Did people watch the Safran Exorcism episode?  Disturbing or what?  I had heard of Bob Larson as a fairly smarmy and unreliable guy (see references to him at this reliable anti-cult site http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l42.html ) - but there can’t be much question of John faking all that howling and screaming.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of it all.  Wanted to go somewhere to find out what others thought of it.

I didn’t see the beginning, but certainly at the end there were no Safranesque smart-aleck fireside cracks - the show finished with Safran agreeing to convert Australia to Christianity the next time Bob drops in! (or words to that effect)

The bit from the interview with Rachel Kohn that Gordon has posted above is very helpful, because at the end of the show, I really wanted to know, well what does John make of it all now?

Hi Ben, I’ve been following the series and watched my tape of last nite’s ep today - very disturbing indeed! Safran’s also been doing Sunday and Saturday arvo’s lately on triple j and was talking up the last episode on Saturday, but his comments then seem to be much the same as those in his interview with Rachel Kohn. I was discussing the end of the episode with a colleague and personally I think Safran would have said ‘yes’ to anything Larson suggested at that stage - Larson’s techniques seem to be very suggestive in that sense (ie the person’s so dazed and confused its extremely unlikely they’d say no). That said I thought what Safran went through seemed pretty genuine insofar as he wasn’t playing it up, how you interpret what he went through is another thing I guess. My colleague also mentioned Matthew 12:43-45 and I wonder how that applies to Safran.

As for Safran’s own spirituality, this is just speculation but he seems (and still seems) particularly committed to non-committment, if that makes sense. I think you’d have to be to make a series like he has.

Thanks for the link about Bob Larson, seems to more the cult of personality there - how ironic :\

G’day Luke.

I don’t know this Larson fellow either, but I wonder about the full context of his policy in light of the criticism leveled at him regarding being taught through his ministry.

It was after all mentioned last night at Synod that the costs of going to Moore College are fairly expensive. I know you were not leveling that criticism yourself - and I am not accusing you of it - I just hear so much criticism leveled at any one who heads up / gets invovled in the healing & deliverence ministry regarding finances.

Perhaps it should not be right for any of our Bible colleges to charge preset fees?

Your warning about Mat is true, though it never stopped Jesus from casting them out, the next step was up to the individuals to walk in the light.

Blessings craig

Thanks for replying to my post, Luke - your reactions weren’t greatly different from mine which is reassuring.  Maybe some other regular watchers were too busy with your Synod up there to catch Safran’s finest hour.

An aside: remember that almost everything shown on the popular media is heavily filtered.  As a comic, Safran is a little more honest that he’s skewing things to make a point (in this case, humour), but it would be naive (and foolish) to form an impression about what other people believe based on what Safran shows on his show.

As a topical example, witness the differences between Philip Jensen’s account of his doings at Reform and what we’ve seen recently in the media!  Although both groups are ostensibly talking about the same event, their accounts are quite different.

I think that Andrew made an excellent point. Take the show with a grain of salt (or even a whopping big handful of it). Television is editted beyond belief so you never know what really happened.

“Was the exorcism real” is the question that a lot of people are asking.  Remember that John’s mission is to entertain as well as inform. I think it’s interesting that people say “oh you couldn’t fake that”. Who couldn’t fake that? Bob Larson himself has been caught out faking exorcisms on previous occassions, so obviously his stooges could fake it (although their demons watch their language and have the courtesy to pause for Bob’s ad breaks). If I had a future television contract on the line, I reckon I could fake it too.

I also think it’s interesting that people will use certain events to support their faith (or aspects of it), but reject other events. For example, I wonder if the same people who say “that exorcism must have been genuine” because it looked convincing on tv and possibly got the interest of their non-Christian friends, are the same people who denounce all that being-slain-in-the-spirit business that charismatics go on with because it doesn’t happen in their Anglican parish. They might claim that the ol’ Toronto Blessing is just the result of psychological manipulation, but that John’s exorcism was the real deal.

Just some food for thought.

Thanks Andrew and Ian for Media Studies 101.

Safran framed this episode totally differently from the other ones, and the impact on the viewer would have been, I would anticipate,quite different from other episodes.  I came here to find out what people made of it - I didn’t ask directly whether people thought it was real.  I’m perhaps more interested in what effect the experience (of which - media studies 101 kids - we only saw a selected, edited, mediated version) might have had on John (who grew up a postcode away from me and studied with my de facto brother-in-law), and on other viewers, than in whether or not it is “real”.  I’m aware, Andrew and Ian, that the latter is a “problematic” question (to quote the sort of lecturers I always used to avoid).

No specific criticism is intended, Ben.  However, I note the topic of this thread is the show in general, not that episode in particular.  For example, that Safran could bluff an English Islamic leader to declare a Fatwa on Rove McManus should not be seen as a great win for the anti-Islamic lobby, but merely an interesting data point about one individual and the influence of the media.

That said, if the Bob Larsen event (or any other episode) causes viewers to enquire about truth, I pray that God uses it to his glory.

It’s a shame that it takes something like a dramatic exorcism on TV to get people’s interest.
Peronsally I’d rather they heard what Jesus said about how people should treat each other (like he who is without sin cast the first stone, treat others how you want to be treated, look after the poor) and think hey yeah that’s a good way to live.
I suppose we’re just too used to action movies these days.

John’s Gospel

Good of you to post that link, Hannah, as I’m a pathological avoider of the ABC’s Jugend Network, as a rule.  Evangelicals should seriously consider giving John’s show a call, I reckon (if you like doing that sort of thing) - there is quite a chance that he’ll engage with what you have to say.  A few years ago on Melbourne RRR-FM’s breakfast show he mentioned that he was reading the Screwtape Letters and finding them fascinating.

Yay Hannah
My fave NT book
If you proffer Ecclesiastes as the OT one then you are my fave person this week.

Owen

John Safran vs God

Should have been called John Safran vs religion because God was nowhere to be seen.