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.

Wednesday night I made my way down to Kepler’s Bookstore in Menlo Park to hear the L.A. Times Religion writer, William Lobdell talk about his new book Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America-and Found Unexpected Peace. I didn’t really know what to expect walking in, but I was quickly overwhelmed at the large gathering of people that had come to listen. I would estimate there was in upwards of 125 people packed in (standing room only) to listen to William talk about his journey. (You can read, a short version of last nights lecture here.)

As an investigative reporter (and Christian at the time), Lobdell turned his investigative prowess on Christianity and the church to help ease some of his doubts created in large part (by his own admission) to what he was experiencing in his investigation of the Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal. His doubts emerged from one experience (recounted in in this article) where the church came to the defense of Father Harris, a priest accused of 12 counts of molestation. Lobdell found himself perplexed and devastated at the church’s misplaced compassion–they were rallying around Father Harris, but didn’t seem to care for the victim one iota. This was only one step in his journey that included investigating The Trinity Broadcasting Network, their preaching/practice of the prosperity gospel and specifically Benny Hinn whom he labeled as a fraud. (Hinn rakes in an estimated $90/year in salary while his followers “pay” for healing to the point of poverty.)

These investigations led Lobdell to specifically investigate the validity (fruits) of the gospel in the lives of Christians. His basic thesis/assumption was: If the gospel is true, then the behavior of Christians should be better than that of Atheists. Unfortunately, Lobdell found what most of us know to be true–there is no difference, statistically speaking, between professing Christians and professing Atheists–divorce rates in the church are higher, Generosity is lower, and scientific studies of prayer found no difference on healing for a Christian vs. non-healing for an Atheist. Lobdell concluded, “Every investigation led me against faith.” (Lobdell seems to be the “anti-Strobel“)

As Lobdell spoke about his investigations I resonated with his conclusions regarding the actions/behavior of Christians vs. the rest of the world (much like everyone else present in the room), however I could not and have not been able to come to his ultimate conclusion that “Faith is wishful thinking, not reality.”

Lobdell went on to lament that Christianity and the Church is unable to live with and embrace doubt, that it’s not valued by Christians and the Church and as a result, it something that pushes people away more than it gives them certainty. I have agreed with this assessment for years. There is a tension that is always prevalent between faith and doubt, and it’s living in that tension that allows space for growth, space for relationship with God to build, and space for a new way of life to emerge. Faith is not a verifiable, provable certainty in the same way that doubt is not a verifiable, provable certainty–many see doubt as the opposite of faith, the polar-opposite and in a sense a polar-certainty (atheists included–see Richard Dawkins). Lobdell, although stating that he is now more comfortable with his doubts moved paradoxically to state definitively that he believes there is no personal God, trading in one set of certainties for another instead of living in the tension he claims to desire. This is a philosophical dilemma he seemingly doesn’t recognize and blatantly obvious in his final, ironic statement of the evening: “If I were on the plane that landed on the Hudson, would I be praying? I hope not… but the flesh is weak.”

Thursday night at 11:30p on ABC, Nightline will be airing a debate that took place last week at Mars Hill Church in Seattle between Mark Driscoll and Annie Lobert versus Deepak Chopra and Carlton Pearson on the topic “Does Satan Exist”. The preview itself is certainly a tantalizing and interesting starting point for viewing. Be sure to TIVO/DVR the debate and watch it. We’ll talk about it more in depth later this week and the points raised by Driscoll, Lobert, Chopra and Pearson. Should be an interesting discussion!

Read more about the debate here at Nightline’s Website.

I’ve been traveling an abnormal amount the past couple of months speaking at churches in Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc, about the new church plant in San Francisco. All of this travel has offered me an opportunity to get to know a few “single-serving friends” (a reference from Fight Club) and this past weekends flight to San Diego was no different.

Enter Ted.

Before the plane even made it to the tarmac, Ted introduced himself and asked what my occupation was (the million dollar question where the answer would surely put an end to any ensuing conversation) to which I responded, “I’m a pastor”. Immediately Ted shifted in his seat a bit, almost uncomfortably, but then something changed in his demeanor and he turned to me and began to ask questions about our congregation in San Francisco and what exactly a church plant is/looks like. I answered his questions one at a time before he began an onslaught of questions from all sorts of different angles, “What is truth, what’s your stance on homosexuality, how can you trust the Bible, how do you understand the Trinity, what’s your training, why are there so many denominations if Truth is unified, isn’t seminary pointless, etc, etc, etc.” Let me say up front that I’ve never experienced such a wide-range of questions in such a short amount of time and it literally caught me off guard leaving me a little off kilter and discombobulated.

Ted asked permission to tell his story, and so I listened as he started with the line, “I have a lot of Christian friends who don’t consider me to be a Christian… I grew up in a Buddhist home before joining the church.” Ted continued his testimony all the while utilizing some of my answers to the onslaught of questions he asked earlier to make his points and solidify the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (read: Mormonism). For the majority of our flight (1 hour, 8 minutes) I was being evangelized by a Mormon and had no clue. Ted, presented himself as a person seeking understanding and answers to some of life’s hardest questions before spinning on a dime and presenting Mormon Doctrine and belief, asking me to read the introduction of the Book of Mormon and following the instructions to believe in the One True Church.

Ted, was more than likely in his mid to late 40′s, over twenty-five years removed from his Missionary Journey as a 19 year old and yet still sought opportunities as a missionary to share his faith. I must say, that I was very impressed with his boldness, with his willingness to engage with me on a 9:50p flight to San Diego and his friendliness.

I realized, in retrospect, the formula that the Mormon Church uses for evangelism:

• Upset the equilibrium of your opponent by questioning their belief system as a seeker of truth. By raising questions to which they are unable to answer provide you with a platform down the road to speak your truth into the situation, thus pointing them in a new direction
• Share your personal story and point out the inconsistencies and questions of your previous way of thinking by inserting your “opponents” thoughts into the mix as well. This will give you common ground and begin to create agreement.
• Point to the Book of Mormon an ask the listener (no longer an “opponent”) to read the Introduction on their own time and follow the instructions, praying for guidance and a “burning in the bosom.”
• Hope the person doesn’t ask any questions outside of your presentation because you’re not really prepared to go “off-script”

This presentation is wildly effective, hence the growth being experienced by the Mormon Church, however taking the conversation off-script reveals a great lack of depth behind the scenes.

I look at my conversation with Ted and I wonder why the church isn’t more effective in presenting the Gospel, in pointing towards the Kingdom of God and specifically Jesus… especially if we truly believe it is the hope of the world! How did we lose our way in this? What has been the greatest source of our undoing in this respect? Have we lost our boldness? Do we no longer rely on the Spirit? Or are we simply just unprepared?

Ted taught me a great deal about the importance of story and how we as the Church miss the boat on pointing towards Jesus and the Kingdom of God…

Tim Keller writes a striking statement in his book The Reason for God (p.152), “If there is no God, argues Nietzsche, Sarte, and others, there can be no good reason to be kind, to be loving, or to work for peace” (emphasis mine). This is an all-or-nothing statement, that if proven true, radically changes the landscape of atheistic perspective. Every time someone, Christian or not, performs an unloving, unkind, or un-peaceable act we promote an atheistic perspective to the world. Simply put, this is how you can be an evangelist for atheism.

The flip side to this statement pre-supposes that love, peace and kindness are the sole-possession of theism, particularly a Christ-centered Theism as in Keller’s case. That last statement alone makes this idea hard to swallow if you focus on the outward fruit of many who call themselves Christian in our global village.

This makes me wonder, has the church really become a place of “Evangelical Atheists”? Obviously that’s a strong statement, and immediately I’m forced to backtrack and say that there are many congregations and many Christ-followers throughout the United States and around the world who would not fit into this category, however I think it’s safe to assume the majority of our society believes the stereotype of Christianity as judgmental, fear-mongering, war-mongering, right-wing extremists. How did we get to this point? Certainly it didn’t happen overnight?

Harry Emerson Fosdick wrote this back in 1919 in his essay The Sense of God’s Reality, “Atheism is not our greatest danger, but a shadowy sense of God’s reality. We do not disbelieve that God exists, but we often lack a penetrating and convincing consciousness that we are dealing with him and he with us.” Is the problem outlined by Fosdick after the turn of the 20th century the same at the turn of the 21st century, or perhaps magnified to a greater extent?

What I find interesting about Fosdick’s statement is how it presents itself in the prayers of the Christian. It seems without fail, whether in distress or painful circumstances at dinner or in small group we throw in the line “God be with us” or at the beginning of our worship services the prayer is heard “We welcome you here Lord.” I wonder how ridiculous those statements seem to an omni-present God who is already there, already comforting, already working and moving. I believe what this shows us more than anything is how right Fosdick was, that we live in the greatest danger of all: a shadowy sense of God’s reality… we don’t experience a perpetual presence of God’s reality.

Has the church lost its voice, its power because of our own atheism, our own practice of the absence of God? Have we, as Jesus stated of the Ephesians, “Forsaken our first love”?