Mark Driscoll, Deepak Chopra, Others to Square Off Over Satan
(link to Seattle Times Article here)
Nightline" debate to take on Satan in Ballard church
Seattle Times staff reporter
The debate over whether Satan exists is hardly going to be settled in a 30-minute television show.
But that's not stopping a rather curious lineup from debating that question for ABC's "Nightline."
The debaters: megachurch Pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle; alternative-medicine author Deepak Chopra; a former Las Vegas escort who founded Hookers for Jesus; and a former Pentecostal preacher who was branded a heretic for saying everyone — not just Christians — could go to heaven.
The four are gathering Friday at Mars Hill Church in Ballard, where Driscoll is preaching pastor, to tape the segment, which will air March 26.
The topic has gotten a few responses of "Say what?" Why, now, is "Nightline" discussing Satan's existence, and why were these particular people chosen to do so?
For one, the topic can be particularly relevant in troubled times such as these, when people are looking for explanations for economic chaos.
For another: "There's always an interest in these topics," said James Goldston, the show's executive producer.
Not to mention potentially great ratings.
"Every time we've done one, the response has been pretty dramatic," he said.
It's the latest in a series of "Face Off" debates "Nightline" launched two years ago, bringing together prominent people to debate hot topics. The first one — on the existence of God — is still abcnews.com's single most commented-upon story, Goldston said.
The idea of doing a debate on Satan came about, in part, through conversations the show's staff had with Driscoll when doing a profile on him.
ABC also had done stories on Chopra; Annie Lobert, the founder of Hookers for Jesus, which preaches a Christian message to women in the sex trade; and the Rev. Carlton Pearson, an Oklahoma pastor who went from preaching before 6,000 to leading a couple hundred after he rejected traditional Christian beliefs about heaven and hell.
"We went for the most interesting voices we could find," Goldston said.
All of which makes T.J. Wray, co-author of "The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots," sigh in exasperation.
"Why don't they call professionals — the people who write this stuff?" asked Wray, an associate professor of religious studies at Salve Regina University in Newport, R.I.
It's unlikely a debate of this type can get into the complex theology and history behind Satan, she said.
Still, the topic is timely.
"Historically, when times are difficult, Satan increases in popularity. People begin talking about him," Wray said.
"When things are going well, Satan is kind of on the periphery. But when things go wrong, people ask: 'Why are things the way they are? There must be some evil force in the world.'
"Satan provides a language for us to speak about evil," she said. "That's been his historic role."
For his part, Driscoll believes a literal spirit being named Satan exists and is at work in the world for evil and injustice.
The Bible speaks clearly and repeatedly of Satan, he said.
And "in my own pastoral experience, I have witnessed such great evil and injustice so often that no answer but the existence of a real enemy to good and life makes any sense to me."
The lineup of debaters, Driscoll said, helps ensure "this is not just an academic debate but also a practical discourse."
Driscoll and Lobert will be taking on Chopra and Pearson.
Pearson does not believe in Satan as an actual being and discourages people from doing so because "it makes us helpless, paranoid and frightened."
Human beings themselves create evil and "stupid stuff," he said. To blame Satan takes away personal responsibility.
"I've heard: 'The devil made me do it.' Don't put that on the devil," Pearson said. "You made that stupid decision yourself. Let's talk about why you made it."
In any case, said Wray, the university professor, "to debate this issue is futile. No one's going to emerge the victor. ... It's the topic that never goes away."
Curiously absent? Skeptics, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists... or any other sort of doubters.
This should be interesting, though.
HBO set to air Mormon Temple Ceremony
The following represents the views of a single SSU member, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole
UPDATE: LDS Church Responds to Big Love
Big Love to feature the Mormon Temple Ceremony, TV Guide
Well, this is certainly unprecedented.
The Mormon temples are considered the most sacred of spaces on Earth. Within the temples, several "saving ordinances" are performed, which are required to enter the highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom, including the Endowment and marriage sealings. It is a significant breach of Mormon law to discuss details of the temple ceremonies outside of the "Celestial Room" within the temple, and the church defends the secrecy of these details passionately, claiming that they need to be confined within the temple due to their highly sacred nature.
Big Love, the HBO series about a family within a polygamous sect (an offshoot from what is known as the Mormon church), is going to be airing an episode which will show the details of the ceremony, from the ritual attire to the rituals themselves.
I've never watched Big Love, but I'll be tuning in to this one. Having gone through the Mormon Endowment ceremony, I'm curious to see how accurate the portrayal is. The advertisement (link above) shows the temple clothes of a woman, and it seems spot on... with the exception that the apron ought to be green, not blue.
I have highly mixed feelings about this, however, which may be a remnant of the Mormonism I was raised with. It was this very ceremony that, due to it being almost entirely foreign in style from the rest of the church, shook my faith to the point that I was able to investigate the church rationally. It is now my opinion that the church has its members go through the ceremony either immediately before serving a mission or getting married as a retention technique.
So... how do I feel about this?
Legally:
I am definitely of the opinion that HBO and the team of Big Love are well within the law. It would be a horribly oppressive act and in complete violation of the First Amendment for the government to step in and censor the broadcast, as some LDS folks are currently advocating. The legality of the situation is hardly questionable - the right to offend is a fundamental piece of free speech.
Effects:
HBO may have awakened a slumbering giant here. In November, the US (and California in particular) witnessed the ability of the LDS Church to politically mobilize, to devastating results. Without question, this will instill vitriol within the Mormon community, the likes of which have never been seen. HBO is broadcasting one of the most sacred of Mormon rituals to a wide audience, and hardly in a sympathetic light at that.
In a sentence, HBO just "pantsed" Mormonism, and like anyone who just got "pantsed," they're going to be embarrassed, hurt, and pissed.
If I were still Mormon, I would find myself entrenched in a new battle. Prop 8 envigorated and energized the youth of the church politically, and that was an indirect affront. This could give the same a banner to wave, a new and more righteous cause, and will further reinforce the persecution complex that has been fostered in the church since its inception. This will further "prove" that the powers of the world, driven by mammon (Babylon, Satan, take your pick), are out to destroy the church.
Morally:
The question of the morality of broadcasting the sacred ceremony of someone else's beliefs is a tricky one. Honestly, I have many conflicting opinions regarding it, and I'm not entirely certain where I stand. Immediately and nearly simultaneously, I can't help but think:
- Go for it! Perhaps if the absurdity of their faith is brought to light, it'll marginalize and retard the growth of the church.
- This is inappropriate - there's no reason to slaughter another man's sacred cow unless you'll die of starvation otherwise.
I'll expand more on this as I chew on it, but I think I'm leaning toward the latter right now.
What are your thoughts?