Nightline Face-Off: Does Satan Exist?

I finished watching the debate over the existence of Satan this morning. I watched half of it yesterday and the other half of it this morning. Apparently the debate was edited when it was aired, but you can watch it in its entirety here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

Be prepared to endure commercials before and after each clip. A couple of times the online media player started over at the beginning of the first clip. A bit annoying, but well worth it.

I wish every follower of Christ would watch this. I thought it was a great cultural/philosophical clash. It would be so helpful for Christians to watch and think deeply through the issues presented in this debate. And the greatest issue for me was not the existence of Satan, but the reality of truth.

The players in the debate formed two teams: Mark Driscoll & Anne Lobert on one side and Deepak Chopra and Carlton Pearson on the other side.

When I watched the first half, I thought Driscoll was the winner. He did have home field advantage however because the debate was at his church. Thus, the many rounds of applause after Driscoll’s comments. But the TRUE WINNER of the debate was “Red Shirt Guy.”

As you watch the debate, pay attention to the interaction between the audience and the panel. In particular, pay close attention to two audience members and how they address the Deepak. The two audience members are “Red Shirt Guy” and “Pony Tail Girl.” A please, please understand that if we are going to engage culture we all need to be “Red Shirt Guy;” he got it. He understood the underlying issues and gave the best rebuttal of the night. (See below for my transcription of “Red Shirt Guy’s” comments.) “Pony Tail Girl” took things way to personal and misunderstood the deeper implications of Deepak’s comments. She was right to become angry, because Deepak was saying she was at a “lower level of consciousness.” But for her to say that Deepak was attacking Jesus was the wrong way to respond. Deepak was attacking the nature of truth (which of course we know is Jesus). She would have done better to take a lead from “Red Shirt Guy.”

So here is my reaction to the debate. At the end I will sum up my thoughts about truth, but here are my random thoughts and observations:

“All belief is a cover up for insecurity.” — Deepak Chopra

I did not plan on taking notes, but this is the first thing I wrote down. I am glad “Red Shirt Guy” addresses this later on, because this is an attack on all people of faith.

“If something is real then you don’t need to believe it. You just experience it.” — Deepak Chopra

This is THE ISSUE in the debate for me. I know it was supposed to be about Satan and evil, but this is the issue. What is truth? What is reality? How do we know it? Deepak says that reality is that which we can experience. I agree. But what if we experience something inauthentic? What if two people experience the same thing and interpret it different? How we discern right reality and evil reality?

“The Bible is not the inspired Word of God it is the inspired word of man about God.” – Carlton Pearson

Oh how the mighty have fallen! Pearson’s descent into heresy began with a denial of hell and eternal punishment and it has led him to reject the authority of Scripture all together. Pearson did make a few (emphasis on “few”) good points, but for the most part his comments were wondering, off-topic, etymological, self-involved rambling. I know it sounds like I am hating on Pearson and really I am not. Often the moderator cut Pearson off, because he was headed off into la-la land. I feel so sorry for Pearson.

“Perception is the ultimate reality, but it not necessarily the ultimate truth.” – Carlton Pearson

Yeah, I know where Pearson is coming from. There is a difference between truth and perception. He is wrong to say perception is reality. Perception can be a “perceived” reality, but reality is that which is really real. This goes to the very definition of truth. Truth is that which corresponds with reality. More on truth below.

“Fairytale-like good god and bad god” – Carlton Pearson

The Devil is the “bad god” by the way. Oh and earlier Pearson called the Devil “hairy and horny.” I think he was referring to the caricature of the Devil who has horns, but I did laugh out loud when he said “horny.” My, my, the bishop is off his theological rocker.

Red shirt guy: “My question is for Deepak and the Bishop, You said, ‘All belief is a cover up for insecurity?'”

Red shirt guy: “Do you believe that?

Deepak: “Yes”

Red shirt guy: “Thank you”

Audience laughter

This was the best moment in the debate. Pearson laughed and looked at Deepak. Driscoll smiled. Lobert seemed to miss it. And Deepak tried to explain himself, but he never addressed the implication of Red Shirt Guy’s comment. And don’t miss this, but this is the leverage point in the argument of truth between Christians and pluralists.

Deepak is arguing that “belief” is somehow a more primitive way of knowing. Evolution, he is arguing, has brought us to a higher state of consciousness were we know by experiencing in a way that is consistent with science and philosophy. But here is the deal….DEEPAK’S ARGUMENT IS A BELIEF!

He is using a belief to devalue beliefs. In other words, he is using a belief system to say belief systems are no good. Tim Keller is right, “Every doubt is based on an alternative belief.” (Read Tim Keller’s Reason for God for a fuller explanation of these issues.)

As soon as you define god, you limit god. — Deepak

This is true, but it shouldn’t stop us from exploring God should it? Deepak is no atheist. He contends that there is a high probability of an intelligent being out there. So sure, for finite beings to try to define god we do limit him, but for followers of Christ, we believe Jesus is God and came to reveal to us (in part) who God is.

At one point in the debate a woman question’s Driscoll on how he reconciles the evil of pride with the exclusivity of his position. I don’t have the exact quote, but Driscoll is right to go to the heart of the matter, “But what if it is true.” This whole debate is about truth.

“My experience is more consistent with what we know about biology, evolution, and the laws of nature, in my opinion.” — Deepak

This was his response to “Pony Tail Girl” and it is a sophisticated way of say you are wrong, but in Deepak’s worldview you cannot call anybody wrong, because there is no constant, no fixed point of reality, no frame of reference.

Pony-tail girl: “Why would you come here tonight if not to attack him [Jesus]?”

This was the worst thing she could have said. The only thing worse thing for her to say would have been to say that Deepak’s mom is a prostitute. Antagonistic attacks on non-Christian people will never lead them to Christ. This is a good time to love our enemies. Deepak wasn’t attacking Jesus. He was attacking truth. As I stated above, we know that Jesus is the Truth, and so maybe by inference he was attacking Jesus, but in responding to a pluralistic culture we need to respond to people’s statements, and the worldview behind their statements, and not the inferences we draw from those statements, because like Pony Tail Girl we are then arguing against an idea in our minds that may not be in theirs. She had all the best intentions in the world, bless her heart, but she didn’t help our cause.

“You need these forces [creativity/evolutionary and entropy/destruction] to keep creation going.” — Deepak

Driscoll needed to push the issue with Deepak over why he would call Anne’s story “evil” and more importantly why are these entropy/destructive forces necessary for creation to go on? Maybe he should have asked “How is it both evil and necessary?” Anne had been brutally gang raped and Deepak agreed that this was evil, but he wanted to brush it off as the fault of cultural psychosis. As he described his worldview he said destructive forces are necessary. So does that imply that evil is necessary? Or that Anne needed to be raped and tortured? I wish Driscoll would have pushed this issue. It would have clearly shown the inconsistencies of Deepak’s worldview.

“I don’t trust my mind. I trust my spirit which is beyond all this” – Deepak

Driscoll did a great job in questioning how Deepak believed in the evolutionary process and yet Deepak admits that he doesn’t trust his mind. He trusted his spirit! This was a clear contradiction in Deepak’s form of pluralism. If he doesn’t trust his mind, then why use his mind to study biology, cosmology, and philosophy? Why not just meditate and stop writing books?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: This debate was not about Satan. The existence of Satan is what got the debate started. This was a debate about truth. What is there in the world of philosophy, religion, and theology that is true? What is it in those areas that corresponds with reality? For those of us who follow Jesus, we believe that he is the way, the truth, and the life, the only way to God the Father and eternal life. Jesus did speak these words in Aramaic, but when he spoke of “me” or “God” he was not referring to the “circle within the circle” or the great “spirit” in the sky. Deepak’s interpretation is not consistent with First century Judaic thought. It sounded intellectual, but his interpretation of Jesus is not consistent with what we know theologically or linguistically about the first century. What his followers heard him say is “God” and “me.” When Jesus said nobody comes to the Father except through me, the gospel writers wrote the word eimi in Greek. There only way to interpret that is through the very simple meaning “me.” Jesus was simple at this point. It takes a lot of religious and philosophical wrangling to make it more completed than that. For those of us who are Christ followers it is simple:

Jesus is the Truth.

He is our philosophical constant.

He is our moral framework.

He is what corresponds with reality.

He is not our experience of cultural/philosophical influences.

He is really real.

He really lived.

He really died on a Roman cross.

He really was buried in a borrowed tomb.

He really rose up from the dead.

He really sent the Holy Spirit to live in the hearts of those who are his.

He is really coming back.

Mark Driscoll did a great job of reading Scripture as his closing remarks. He read 1 John 5:19-20. I am closing this blog with that text:

We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (ESV)

 

I Dreamed I Saw Oral Roberts & Mark Driscoll

Last week I woke up early in the morning after a vivid dream where I saw Oral Roberts & Mark Driscoll in the most peculiar meeting. I dreamed that my wife and I lived in a tiny, cramped apartment with cement block walls painted a pale yellow. I walked in the door of my apartment and there was Oral Roberts and Mark Driscoll sitting in the living room. I walked in and was amazed that these two guys were talking to each other, and talking to each other in my living room. This is where the dream gets fuzzy. I cannot recall all of their conversation, but towards the end, Mark says that he has a nagging cough and he asked if Oral would pray for him. Oral agreed and the three of us stood in a huddle.

My wife was behind us snapping pictures as Oral began to talk to Mark about healing. Oral said to me, “Now if there is no healing anointing, then he won’t be healed right now.” I felt a little embarrassed knowing that this not how Mark (or I) viewed healing. Mark wasn’t bothered by it, he just closed his eyes and Oral began to pray. The dream goes fuzzy from here, but the next thing I remember is they were both going to leave and I wanted Jenni to get one more picture of the three of us. We lined up against the wall and she snapped a photo of Oral Roberts, me, and Mark Driscoll. This is when I woke up.

Strange dream, I know. I don’t think these two guys have ever met. I don’t know if they ever will, but in one night, in one dream, they did indeed meet.

Certainly they have a lot in common. They are both leaders. They are both visionaries and vision-casters. They are both preachers. They both love the Bible. They are both gifted communicators. They are both builders—Oral a university (ORU) and Mark a church-planting movement (Mars Hill Church & A29). They both use media in ministry. They both have a deep passion to reach people with the gospel. They both have their share of critics. They both have made mistakes. They both continue to press on. They both have influenced me in profound ways.

They also have their differences. Mark is known for his indie rocker t-shirts and jeans; I don’t if I have ever seen Oral in anything but a suit. Oral is in the twilight of his ministry years; Mark is still in the early stages of his ministry. Oral is a Pentecostal; Mark is a Calvinist (although Mark does call himself a “charismatic with a seat belt on,” a metaphor I like a great deal.) Oral has been known to preach on God’s prosperity; Mark has been known to preach on God’s providence. (Both messages contain truth we can learn from.) Mark likes to use the word “election”; Oral likes to use the word “anointing.” Mark is from the Pacific Northwest; Oral is from Oklahoma.

Even in light of their very clear differences, I cannot get past their similarities. The one, most over-arching commonality is their never-ending love for Jesus. Like them or love them, hate them or admire them, they both are Christ-centered men. I can recall the times I have heard Oral tell the story of how he was led to “heal people like Jesus did,” or that when we receive the Holy Spirit “we receive more of Jesus.” And I often hear Mark’s manta: “It is all about Jesus; It is only for Jesus; It is always about Jesus.”

I don’t know if these guys will ever meet, but I am thankful for their influence on my faith and life. It is not only their influence, but the movements they represent (the charismatic movement and the reformed tradition) that have influenced me over the years. I am not a Pentecostal; I am not a Calvinist, but I am thankful for how these movements have been used by God to shape me.

Praise the Lord! & Sola Deo Gloria

As a bonus, here are two video clips from these two guys.

Oral Roberts is discussing his approval of the most recent (and very excellent) changes at Oral Roberts University. Mark Driscoll is preaching the gospel, apparently using the Apostle’s Creed as a rough guide.

(HT: Todd Rhoades)

 

Men who are influencing me

Men need the influence of other men in their lives if they are going to continue to grow spiritually and mentally. I feel the weight and responsibility of that as a Dad of two boys. Last Saturday, Wesley (my oldest) and I were sitting outside. We had been burning brush all day and we had taken a break. As we sat on our outdoor swing, Wesley put his hand on my shoulder and said, “This is good father/son bonding time.” Very astute for an eight year-old.

This did get me thinking about the men who are influencing me today. I only have a personal relationship with one of these men. The rest of them have been influencing me through some kind of media (books, music, podcasts, etc.) This list changes as influences change, but these are the men who are shaping my thinking today. These men have produced the voices, the one-liners, the paradigms of thinking that are rolling around in my head. (And no, I am not hearing voices!) These are the men who are speaking to me, the men who are challenging me. These are in no particular order.

Mark Driscoll
http://www.marshillchurch.org/

I listen to his weekly, one-hour-long sermons every week. I first discovered Mars Hill Church in the late 1990s in my research on postmodernism. They were held up as an example of the postmodern church. Today no one is really using the term “postmodern” and Driscoll and the church has ceased to be identified by that title. In Driscoll I have a great deal of comradery, because he is a good mix of theological depth and pop culture-infused humor. He is the most persuasive Calvinist I have ever heard. He has helped me reframe salvation in terms Reformed theology. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Calvinist, but Driscoll and others (including Bruce Ware and Mark Dever) have caused me to take a few theological steps in their direction. Or should I say, God preordained that by his grace I would shift in their direction!

Eugene Peterson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_H._Peterson

I continue to quote him and ask myself, “What would EP think?” He was a Presbyterian pastor for some thirty years, taught pastoral and spiritual theology, and translated (paraphrased?) the Bible into modern English in recent years. He has written a number of books on pastoral leadership and spirituality. His recent trilogy Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places, Eat This Book, and The Jesus Way have been extremely influential books. Peterson has a keen theological mind and a heart that is passionately in love with the local church. He is THE pastor of pastors.

Ignatius of Antioch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

He has been dead for a long time. He died a martyrs death in Rome. He was thrown to the wild beasts. On his way from Antioch to Rome he was in chains, but wrote seven letters to seven churches. I read through them recently and they read much like the biblical epistles. He died in 110 AD and is one of the earliest church fathers. He was passionate about the establishment of orthodox Christian doctrine over the heresies of other groups, especially the Gnostics. I was reading one of his letters one morning and I was struck by the fact that here I was reading his writings some 1900 years after this man’s death. I was able to do that, because he took the time to write. Ignatius has challenged me to continue writing.

Brian Zahnd
http://www.brianzahnd.com/

Brian is the only guy on my list that I know personally. He has been my pastor since I was in college and there was a time when I thought we were going in separate directions. Over the last three to four years he has been re-thinking, re-living, and re-preaching the Christian life in a way that is larger than any one Christian tradition. He continues to challenge me with his theological pursuits and his reading list. His teaching is dominated by five themes – cross, mystery, eclectic, community, and revolution. I listen to him weekly.

Bob Dylan
http://www.bobdylan.com/

I put Bob under Brian, because Brian gave me an introduction to Dylan back in 2005. At that time I had two of Dylan’s gospel albums – Slow Train Coming and Saved. I was interested in Dylan’s gospel albums, but I hadn’t stepped into Dylan’s world at that time. In December 2006, I got two Dylan albums for Christmas. Since that time, I have got deeper and deeper into the world of Bob Dylan. It is a strange and fascinating journey through the life of a poet. (Dylan says he has always been a poet first and a musician second.) I am now beginning to speak Dylan-ese, that is, inserting Dylan lyrics into my writing, speaking, thinking, and conversations. Many of Dylan’s songs have become paradigms in which to sort things out. I know have 15 albums and a couple of bootlegs, and four DVDs. I have 185 songs to date. Dylan has released 44 albums, so I am only just beginning!

Wayne Grudem
http://www.phoenixseminary.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=155

Grudem is one of my favorite theologians. If I would ever do a Ph.D in systematic theology, I would study under him. I have found his abbreviated theology, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, to be a helpful resource. I turn to it time and time again. He comes from a Reformed background, but has done some good work in the area of charismatic theology. He is thoughtful and thorough in his theological treatments. This book is a scaled down version of his larger Systematic Theology and an easier read for pastors or Bible study leaders. I highly recommend it.

Robert Lewis
http://www.mensfraternity.com/

Last fall our church started a Men’s Fraternity, a men’s ministry pioneered by Robert Lewis at Fellowship Bible Church in Little Rock. The book that we have been going through is The Quest for Authentic Manhood, written by Lewis. We are coming to the end of our course of study, but it has been good for me and then men at our church. I have become increasing passionate to reach men and connect men with Jesus and the Church. For so long the local church has been considered a woman’s thing. One of the reasons is because we have failed to raise up strong, godly men in our church. MF has been a great way for us to do this, to raise up men who REJECT passivity, ACCEPT responsibility, and LEAD courageous. These three themes have been dominating my thinking recently.

These men are changing my way of thinking and, hopefully, changing my way of living.

Gonna change my way of thinking,
Make myself a different set of rules.
Gonna put my good foot forward,
And stop being influenced by fools.

 

Dudes and Chicks

Click here to see the “Dudes and Chicks” video interview with Mark Driscoll.

 

Thoughts on “Dudes and Chicks”

The above video is an interview with Mark Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. (See post: “Mark Driscoll Links for more information”)

The above video is a short interview with Mark Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. The video was shot as a promo for John Piper’s Desiring God conference: “Above All Earthly Powers—The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World.” Mark has described himself as a “charismatic calvinist.” He has been in and out of postmodern discussion in the church and in discussions about the Emergent Church. I like this guy a lot. I have followed his ministry since I was in seminary and he continues to challenge me to be both theologically depth and missionally aware. I have just added his podcast to my iTunes.

He is talking about the importance of assessing church planters to see if they have the goods before you send them off to plant a church. I thought it was a good thought, but not nearly as funny as his comments about “dudes and chicks” in the church. He makes good points regarding masculinity and “dudes” in the Bible like Paul, David, John the Baptist. He is also right to say that our churches are overflowing with “chick-a-fied, church boys.” He says the primary issue in church growth is reaching young men. I can’t argue with that. I do think he goes a little far when he says if you get the young men in the church that you get everything. I think you still need targeted outreach for women and children. Plus, he makes it sound like anything that is feminine is bad, which I do no think is true. He seems to imply that women are not innovators, which I do not believe to be true. God made man — male and female. Female (or the feminine) is a part of the goodness of God’s creation. Nevertheless, Mark has some insightful and some insightfully funny things to say.(For fun, count the number of times he says “chicks” and the number of times he says “dudes.”)

 

Mark Driscoll Links

If you are looking for more information about Mark, here are some links:

http://theresurgence.com/blog/2 — blog
http://www.marshillchurch.org/feeds/ — podcast
www.amazon.com//Confessions of a Reformission Rev. — book

Mark has launched three ministries:
http://www.marshillchurch.org/ — church
http://theresurgence.com/ — theological association
http://www.acts29network.org/main.html — church planting org.