MondayMorningInsight.com > Driscoll: Salvation by Eating Chicken Wings and Napping

HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

Driscoll: Salvation by Eating Chicken Wings and Napping

Orginally published on Monday, March 30, 2009 at 7:05 AM
by Todd Rhoades

My favorite part of the "Is Satan Real" debate on ABC's Nightline last week was Mark Driscoll saying that if people would have made up a religion and voted on it, they would have come up with something like a "Salvation by eating chicken wings and napping". At least he said that is what he would have voted for. (That's classic Driscoll). I thought Mark and Annie did a great job. If you missed any of the debate, you can see it all here...Here's a shorter YouTube clip:

What was your opinion of the debate?

This post has been viewed 581 times so far.

There are 19 Comments:

Posted by stewart

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Not having seen the whole debate, this clip left me with the following impression.

Mark did good.

Chopra looked like a fraud. He was vague and looney.

The Bishop was refreshing. I think he’s terribly mislead and I pray for him. But he was pretty straight-forward which I think is unusual.

He came right out and said “I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God, but human words about God.” I disagree, but I appreciate his candor.
Posted by Steve Cuss

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 9:23 AM

I’ve watched about 80% of the clips now (The ABC website is clunky) and I came away very impressed with Driscoll - he reigned in his renowned sharp tongue and make an excellent effort to speak clearly and concretely.

Deepak never made sense in spite of big words and bigger ego. I don’t understand his appeal except that he seems to believe in everything and nothing at the same time.

The Bishop (who was featured on an epidose of NPR’s “This American Life") seems to have studied himself into a vague corner. What does he believe? Hard to say, but he did a good job of remaining cool and seemed able to laugh at himself.

Obviously, I’m biased, but I think Mark Driscoll came across far and away the best in this debate
Posted by Derek Vreeland

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 9:24 AM

I thought the debate was great. I blogged on it here: http://derekvreeland.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/nightline-face-off-does-satan-exist/

It was much more a debate about truth than Satan.

My favorite part of the debate was when the guy with the red shirt from the audience came to the mic to ask Deepak and the Bishop a question.

You have to see it in context, but Deepak made the comment earlier that all belief is a cover up for insecurity. He said that if something is real you don’t have to believe in it...you just experience it. Of course this is a pretty offensive statement to people of faith.

The guy with the read shirt came to the mic and, well, here is the transcript:

Red shirt guy: “My question is for Deepak and the Bishop, You said, ‘All belief is a cover up for insecurity?’”

Red shirt guy: “Do you believe that?

Deepak: “Yes”

Red shirt guy: “Thank you”

Audience laughter

This is Tim Keller’s point in The Reason for God. Every doubt is based on an alternative belief. The whole debate is about beliefs!

Deepak goes on to say that he doesn’t trust his mind, just his spirit. (Driscoll asked a good question which prompted that response.) I was wondering, if Deepak doesn’t trust his mind then why is he talking and writing books. Why doesn’t he just meditate!

“The Bishop” Carlton Pearson sounded a bit self-involved, but I think that has grown out of his hurt. His decent into heresy is sad.

I emailed our congregation and encouraged them all to watch the debate. I have ordered the DVD and will show it to my home group and maybe to my leadership team. I think it is that important for people to see how a pluralistic culture is so loosy goosey with truth.

Derek
Posted by

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 9:43 AM

I was impressed by Driscoll and the reality of the young lady’s conversion to Christ. Her werds and heart came through with gratefulness to christ and compassion for others… hmm..love God, love others.

bishop came across as well as deepak as really in love with the sound of their own voice and thoughts.
Posted by Paul Bowman

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

I agree with Derek, best line came from the guy with the red shirt. Classic!
Posted by

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I’m glad others picked up on the guy in the red shirt. That was incredible! I thought Driscoll handled things very well and the former prostitute as well. I heard that Driscoll also wanted D.A. Carson or Ravi Zacherias or both but Nightline wanted to narrow it down to two voices on each side.
Posted by Peter Hamm

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 11:18 AM

The bishop’s ridiculous reduction of the Bible to man’s words about God are a great cop-out to believe anything you want to.

I have a brain, so I’m not having any, but I would pray that perhaps he re-evaluates whether God might be powerful enough to see to it that we have the Bible, the inspired word of God… and maybe believe it rather than just the parts he likes.

I’m not a huge Driscoll fan, but boy oh boy was he the right guy for that debate.

The res shirt guy’s comments are so cool. Totally reduced Chopra’s “belief system” to what it is…
Posted by Steve Cuss

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 11:23 AM

The red shirt guy was awesome. I thought it was great to see the different reactions of Deepak and the Bishop. Deepak looked ticked and the bishop laughed freely and seemed to enjoy the point. I disagree with pretty much everything the Bishop said, but I appreciated his demeanor, if nothing else.

Driscoll owned the night. I’d love to see Tim Keller in such a debate. He, too, would own Chopra.
Posted by

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 12:11 PM

stewart:

“He came right out and said “I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God, but human words about God.” I disagree, but I appreciate his candor.”

I wish that all heretics were this straightforward in this day and age.

--
CS
Posted by Derek Vreeland

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I would love to see Tim Keller go head to head with Deepak Chopra. Or ever better, I would love to see a head to head debate between Ravi Zacharias and Deepak Chopra.

Ravi would eat his lunch.

Derek
Posted by

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 1:38 PM

I’m not a fan of Mark Driscoll’s. Having said that, and being about halfway through the videos, I must say, I am, thus far, very impressed with him.
Posted by Jason Fairbanks

Monday, March 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM

I think it was an excellent debate and I don’t generally like debates. I find Driscoll, Chopra, and Pearson and the perspectives they each represent helpful. Driscoll and Chopra, as the heavy-weights, both did a good job of respectfully articulating their views, only occasionally resorting to cliches and generalities.
Posted by

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Similar to the talk Driscoll gave at Southeastern Seminary’s Convergence Conference in 07, this venue was a great opportunity to see and hear another side of Driscoll.

It was important for Driscoll to be there with Ms. Lobert. Let’s face it, her arguments were essentially, “this is my experience, and you can’t take that away...” Really played into Chopra’s logic. Without Driscoll it would have been an experiential lovefest...Important for Driscoll to put experience in context.

Wish there would have been more push on Chopra’s comments like, “I don’t have a system...” Sorry, that’s a system. He made several statements…

Best moment was when Driscoll simply read the Bible for his closing argument…

Someone mentioned Dr. Zacharias. Would love to see him and Chopra. Their accents together would make it like the devil and angel sitting on your respective shoulders…
Posted by

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Matt:

“It was important for Driscoll to be there with Ms. Lobert. Let’s face it, her arguments were essentially, “this is my experience, and you can’t take that away...” Really played into Chopra’s logic. Without Driscoll it would have been an experiential lovefest...Important for Driscoll to put experience in context.”

You’re absolutely right. And the problem we face many times in evangelicalism is that personal experiences and, “changed lives,” are becoming the de facto standard for legitimacy and validation of the Bible and God, instead of the other way around. Chris Rosebrough did a great analysis of this maxim on his Extreme Theology website, if anyone wants to check it out further.

What I also found interesting about that exchange was that it cornered Chopra for a bit there. He denied the devil due to a lack of evidence. Lobert said that she experienced the devil, which would give proof of his existence. Chopra was asked if Lobert was wrong, because of his denial of the devil. Then, Chopra jumped into postmodernist mode and said that her experience was true for her.

Uh, no, sorry. Either her experience was valid and true, and there is a devil, or her experience was invalid (e.g. hallucination, psychological), and there is no devil, as Chopra said. (Or, the devil had nothing to do with her experience, but that’s not a part of his argument.)

--
CS
Posted by Derek Vreeland

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM

I have noticed a few comments on this thread like “I don’t like Driscoll, but he did good in the debate” or “The debate showed a different side of Driscoll.”

Ok so maybe I have a man crush on the guy, but I have been listening to him pretty regularly for more than a year and I thought Driscoll in the debate was pretty consistent with who Driscoll is or at least who he is in his regular teaching mode.

I continue to be surprised by those who are not Driscoll fans...maybe its the Calvinism, or the jokes, or his complimentary view of women in ministry, or its the jeans...I don’t know. I am not saying that we should all be “fans” per se, but this guy is doing a pretty good job, day in and day out remaining faithful to Scripture and missional in culture.

Derek
Posted by

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Derek,

I won’t go into all the reasons I’m not a fan of Driscoll’s , but I will say this...it is probably a good thing that the debate didn’t explore further Chopra’s claim, “My god isn’t sexist.”

I think your “man-crush” (and there’s nothing wrong with that) explains why you more easily over look some of his stuff and thus not get how others are seeing “another side” of him.

But really, that’s neither here nor there. I think it’s best to focus on the debate as presented, not on what he’s done or said in the past. I went into the viewing of the debate thinking about my past experience with Driscoll and thus expected him to say some really insightful and helpful things, as well make me cringe and shake my head in disbelief at least once. Not this time however. After watching the whole exchange, I was pleasantly surprised at how well Driscoll came off. So, kudos to him.
Posted by Peter Hamm

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Derek,

I agree… but still not a fan. His gender thing is, imho, not true to all of scripture, he needlessly offends too often, stuff like that.

Can I think he did a great job and that I’m glad it was him in that debate and celebrate his efforts for the Kingdom anyway? I think I can.
Posted by

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 11:23 PM

Nice job Mark! God really helped him articulate the truth in a clear way.
Posted by

Wednesday, April 01, 2009 at 5:41 AM

Brian,

“...as well make me cringe and shake my head in disbelief at least once.”

How about when he referred to Jesus as being a “dude”?

Page 1 of 1 pages

Post Your Comments:

Hi... I'm Todd Rhoades. I'm a Christ-follower, husband, father and I love to connect leaders with other leaders. Hopefully you'll find something here at MMI you like and will return often. If you want, you can find out more about me or follow my every step on Twitter.