5
Does Satan Exist? (The Debate)
Last week Annie Lobert, Mark Driscoll, Deepak Chopra & Carlton Pearson gathered together at Mars Hill Church in Seattle to debate one of the most heated issues in modern theology and philosophical thought: Does Satan Exist? If you were unable to catch the debate on television or would like to see the entire debate in its fullest you can find it here on Nightline’s “Face-off Website. I would recommend watching the full debate over the short 30 minute episode for the fact that there is more nuance and you can get a fuller understanding of the context from which they were debating.
At the beginning of the debate it was evident that both sides had different understandings of the Satan they were trying to prove/disprove. Bishop Carlton Pearson, after sharing his own life experiences went on to say: “I had tremendous faith in the devil in his omnipresence, his omnipower and omniscience…” and described him as a “hairy, horny, creature.” To which later Driscoll followed up by saying, “The Satan you reject, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipowerful, is the same Satan the Scriptures reject.” It seems the comic book (or South Park) depiction of Satan has so enraptured our minds that this is all we can think of when the name is mention. Along those same lines, I was amazed to see the qualities of God (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) attributed to Satan in this setting by a former Bishop in the Pentecostal Church.
I think this points out a glaring weakness in the Pentecostal Church’s understanding of theology as they have in a great extent placed Satan on the same level as God–which is exactly what Satan wanted when he was cast from Heaven. Pearson goes on to say, “We (the church–specifically the Pentecostal Church–have as much faith in the devil as we do Jesus. We’ll defend the Devil more than we will God.” I couldn’t agree more with Pearson. From personal experience I have seen many churches in the Pentecostal tradition speak more of Satan and demonic forces/activity than they ever do about Jesus. It gives me pause and makes me wonder if Pearson is really rebelling against that notion–that Jesus became absent in the church–and it led him down the road to completely deny the existence of Satan.
No one, however could accuse Driscoll of doing the same. It seemed as if Driscoll at times was forcing Jesus into the conversation instead of creating space for Jesus to shine through. I was, however, very impressed with how he approached the debate, sitting quietly and in a real sense allowing the confusing words of Chopra and Pearson to strangle themselves.
Chopra continually tried to toe the line of the existence of Satan vs. the non-existence of Satan depending on the circumstances: “What’s good for me may not be good for you… I don’t need the Devil because I don’t have the guilt and shame that you people do.” To which later he returned saying, “God and Satan are complete allies, you cannot have one without the other.” Yet ultimately, “Belief is a cover up for insecurity.”
Chopra came off as extremely confusing, inarticulate, under-prepared and arrogant (something I wasn’t very much expecting.) Yet at the end an audience member came to ask Chopra a question saying, “You stated earlier, ‘All belief is a cover-up for insecurity.’ Do you believe that?” Chopra responded with a resounded “Yes.” To which the audience member responded, “Thank you” and walked away. It was a priceless moment as Chopra really was caught off guard and with no response but launched into an expanation of how it wasn’t really belief at all if it’s true.
Ultimately it seems this debate spiraled away from the question of “Does Satan Exist?” to “What is Truth?” Chopra ultimately stated, “I don’t trust my mind at all, but I do trust my spirit which is beyond my mind” which is more of a gnostic understanding of reality in which the material, present world is un-enlightened (not evil because evil ultimately doesn’t exist.)
Chopra and Pearson weren’t in sync, weren’t clear, and didn’t really communicate their positions well at all, however Driscoll and Lobert gave clear concise statements of their experience, their understanding and the reality of the existence of Satan. I’d love to hear some of your thoughts about this debate and what you picked up that I may have missed.
---
5 Responses to “Does Satan Exist? (The Debate)”
Leave a Reply
Thanks for the summary Monts. I didn’t watch it, but I’m glad to hear your assessment. I’m glad that Driscoll seemed to take the approach he did. I am so thankful that neither Christian seemed to resort to over-the-top and ridiculous accasations and rhetoric.
Both Driscoll and Lobert were on their best behaviors! It was nice to see Christians behaving nicely in a public forum where their beliefs are being challenged/called into question. Every so often it’s good to see an example where silence can actually win your argument because it allows the other sides inconsistencies and incoherence to do all the work for you.
OK, I couldn’t resist so I went to youtube and watched a portion of it. I’m not the biggest Driscoll fan, but I gotta say that he handled himself pretty well. Those arguing against Satan really made the best arguments for his existence based simply on their inconsistency and incoherence. Pearson’s kind of a joke isn’t he? I was hunting for that question from the audience about belief but I couldn’t find it. It reminds me of the comments below on newspaper man who has now rejected God. It is amazing how easily disbelief quickly gives way to dogmatic belief.
Yeah, Pearson’s a joke. He said nothing of consequence, same as Chopra. I remembered where the video segment was that you’re looking for:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/faceoff
Go to “God & Satan: They Define Each Other” and scroll into it to the 5:25 remaining mark and you’ll get to see it.
It’s interesting that Chopra answers that with the idea that whatever you can experience is real. He uses a lot of different “good” experiences to “prove” the existence of God, but is unwilling to use any “bad” or “evil” experiences to “prove” the existence of Satan. That’s logically inconsistent.