"Does Satan Exist?" The Nightline Debate

I recorded it on my DVR last week, but I was watching basketball, so I couldn't watch it when it aired.  But tonight, I finally got the opportunity to watch the "NIghtline Face-Off" debate on the question "Does God Exist?"

I'll be honest. . . the only reason I was interested in watching this debate was for the sheer gluttonous entertainment value of watching Mark Driscoll debate Deepak Chopra.  For a theology nerd like myself, entertainment doesn't get any better than that.  As far as how challenging the debate was for either the debaters or the audience, I'd say it was sub-par and flawed from the beginning. 

On one side of the panel was Mark Driscoll, the wise-cracking, hip, ultra-conservative, pastor from Mars Hill Seattle and a woman named Annie Lobert-- a former prostitute who now leads a ministry called "Hookers for Jesus."  Now, Annie had a very engaging story, and I was intrigued by her minsitry to prostitutes.  But why Nightline chose a former prostitute who admitted to the cameras right before the debate "I don't have a theologian background," (yes . . . that's REALLY what she said) to represent the Biblical side of a debate on demonology strikes me as more than a little bizzare.  Like I said . . . she seems like a nice woman.  I'd invite her to speak at my church.  But she was way out of her element on this one.

Which meant the debate was REALLY between Mark Driscoll (representing the Biblical side) and Deepak Chopra (a New Age guru who has authored over 50 books teaching that all matter is part of one cosmic universal consciousness) and Bishop Carlton Pearson (former Pentecostal fundamentalist turned Universalist) representing the "There's no such thing as Satan" side.   

In general, I thought Driscoll did a good job of presenting the Christian worldview in a way that didn't make us all come off looking like a bunch of morons.  What he did less effectively was present the Christian worldview in a way that didn't make evangelicals look like a bunch of arrogant know-it-alls.  Granted, Deepak Chopra was the most condescending jerk on the panel, but Driscoll was a close second.  As far as the intelligence level of the debate, Driscoll and Pearson were the most articulate and they most skillfully interacted with complex ideas, but Pearson rarely had the opportunity to speak as Chopra kept butting in and spouting off New Age nonsense.  In the end, this debate (and I watched the WHOLE unedited debate on the web) seemed to create more heat than light.

But again, I don't think it was the fault of the debaters.  If Nightline is going to offer televised debates that interact with such important ideas as the nature of God, perhaps they should consider asking a theologian to represent the Christian view, and someone other than Deepak Chopra, the most irrational guy in the looney bin section of Barnes & Nobels, to represent the side that supposedly upholds rationalism.  In good debates, the selected panel of debaters should at least have SOMETHING in common so that they can have a launching pad for discussion.  This panel was so scatter-brained, a discussion about Satan wasn't even possible.  They couldn't even agree on the nature of truth, much less God, much less the authority of Scripture, much less the reality or mythology of Satan.

But, as I said, it's probably worth the time to watch Mark Driscoll throw in a few good zingers on his opponents for the sheer entertainment value of it.  You can watch the whole thing below:

http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/faceoff

Comments

[Jonathan]

I really enjoyed this debate. Mark Driscoll is a very bright guy. He really knows his bible, he's a great teacher of sound doctrine with a strong emphasis on Jesus (like it should be), he looks cool, and I have much respect for him!