Thanks, Mishel. I expect that you are right. I know that stuff can be edited very cleverly to leave out context, but there is enough material in what is left to leave one feeling very dubious about Todd B and his methods.

This is a good site, by the way. I came across it purely by accident, but it's great to find it.

I read the article about Sundar Singh. I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative if I say that this is another area where I give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. I know Sundar Singh's writing quite well as a result of my research in another area and you cannot really understand him fully unless you understand the context in which he was preaching. The Indian Christian and Anglo-Indian theological scene of the time was in a state of flux, with many evangelicals struggling with the whole Christ/Culture debate. Singh's stuff fits right into that and he is one among many evangelicals, some very prominent evangelicals, of the period who were trying to make sense of what it meant to be both Indian and Christian. It was a difficult time for them and some did often slip a bit too much to one side or the other, but they were pioneers in their time and made mistakes. So, I would not be too hard on Singh in most areas. Now, I agree fully that the Swedenborgian stuff is beyond the pale, but I equally wouldn't be too hard on Bentley and others for not knowing about that. As the wikipedia article says, it is absent from the evangelical literature and well hidden (as were a few other evangelical 'meanderings' into the paranormal back in that period, believe me!!). It's a familiar area to me because I've just completed a PhD in twentieth-century mission theology, particularly within Indian Christian theology, and I came across Singh's work a number of time, but I never realsied, until you highlighted the wiki page, that he was into Swedenborg. I should have, because I have read most of Eric Sharpe's excellent books and revere Sharpe deeply, but even I did not know about this aspect of Singh. So, if I didn't, and I have been studying the period at PhD level for six years, I'd be amazed if Bentley et alia did. Having said all of that, I still think that this 'revival' is a strange animal and I wouldn't go within a million miles of it.

Hope you don't think I'm being argumentative for the sake of it.

Thanks for a great site,

Michael