The
Nightline Face Off was advertised on TV tonight. The premise of the debate was interesting: does Satan exist? I originally just half-listened to it. The "Yes" side was introduced: Pastor Mark Driscoll and partner Annie Lobert (founder of Hookers for Jesus). Evangelical, fundamentalist preacher and converted prostitute certainly would be an apt choice for this side. On the other side... and this was where my interest perked up... was Bishop Carlton Pearson.
Bishop Pearson came to my attention by way of Slacktivist. He was a former Pentecostal minister (who drives out demons and such) who announced at some point that he no longer believes in Hell and Satan... at least, not in the form more traditionally known by evangelicals by way of Dante. (Please read that link for full argument, it was argued there better than what I could've said.) As a man who came to see that point of view, he is certainly a very apt, very interesting choice for the "No" camp.
And then the teammate was announced: Deepak Chopra.
Sorry, Nightline. That was just a total mismatch. And I was proven right. Chopra didn't come from an evangelical background, and he wasn't even a Christian. The whole point the debate was supposed to be interesting, to me, was to see two Christian camps debating on Hell, the Devil, and the role of the antagonist on Christian life. Instead, thanks to the smug, condescending "believe in yourself!" Chopra, the debate quickly degenerated into attacks on personal beliefs.
Nightline only showed juicy segments on air, which was a real shame,,, or blessing, depending on your point of view. I'm not inclined to stream from the website for one hour of potentially same tired old debate. If I am going to stream anything, it better be
The Bible's Buried Secrets instead.
I personally believed that the debate would've been much more entertaining if it had been Presidential-style Debate with just Driscoll and Pearson. Lobert adds an emotional side of "I feel the devil whispering to me, he exists." Uh, basic rules of debate: you gotta be able to justify your personal beliefs more than just "I hear voices in my head." Chopra, likewise, skeptically wondered if one can be just as better served as to give oneself credit. Thing is, Chopra's belief is so much different than the other three people involved in the debate that it really was a mismatch - a good debate happens when people have more common grounds.
What I really want to hear more about:
- Driscoll talked about free will in response of why, if God is love, that he creates the Devil. Angels, too, are God's creation and thus possesses free will. "For there to be virtue, there must be the possibility of vice and that's what distinguishes those of us, people and angels, from other forms of creation, trees, animals and the like," he said. "I think if you don't allow choice, the theologians will say you don't have love." (and then Chopra had to reply immediately that it went counter to his knowledge of the Big Bang. Ohnoes, ignorant science vs. religion comment. Shut up, please. You were cutting out a good argument there!)
- Pearson talked about Bible literalism when responding on the mention of the Devil in the Gospel. "The Bible is a several-thousand-year-old document and we have none of the original letters, none of the original manuscripts," he said. "And I do not believe it is the inspired word of God as much as I believe the inspired word of man about God as best as man can perceive." (and then Chopra had to say that belief is a cover-up for insecurity. See a pattern here? Shut up, Deepak.)
- An audience asked Driscoll if it is possible to believe in Jesus but not Satan. Driscoll responded that for there is to be good, there must be evil. I'd like to see him (and Pearson) elaborate more on
Good and
Evil.
In other words, what I really wanted to hear was Driscoll and Pearson, as Christians who happened to disagree on the concept of Hell and the Devil, go into sound theological debate. But of course, this being Nightline Face Off, that wasn't happenin'.
Chopra did have one argument I liked, though. He pointedly asked why God has to be male, and Driscoll said "Jesus was male!". Chopra then proceeded to point out that once you put God as this old man with beard sitting on a throne, you have defined the infinite, and as he rightly pointed out, any human attempt to perceive God as a whole, by definition, would be incomplete. It would be akin to an ant on an elephant trying to describe the whole elephant to another ant living on the same elephant.
I don't know if there are more of substance about the rest of the debate, but judging from the audience's sometimes emotional response ("Jesus wants you to be saved, Deepak!"), I don't think the real meat of the argument was even debated... on whether Satan exists. At the end, Driscoll may be right about one thing: Satan's greatest feat is to convince people that he doesn't exist. After all, there's no way you can prove a negative.