« 5,000 Guys Singing | Main | The Real Population Threat »

Preview: Mark Driscoll on Nightline's Satan Debate

Update: The Nightline Faceoff Debate is now online. You can watch it here.

Amy Letinsky stopped by the site and let me know that she attended the debate taped last week featuring Pastor Mark Driscoll, Annie Lobert, Bishop Carlton Pearson, and Dr. Deepak Chopra. The topic: the existence of Satan. Amy "live tweeted" the debate and gives us a preview of the debate that will air this Thursday on ABC. In her summary of the debate she writes,

Pastor Mark preached the gospel and read the Bible. Can we ask more of him? I should have expected this strategy, but I was pleasantly surprised. His opening statement was the Gospel, how Jesus died in our place for our sins, defeating Satan, sin, and death. When he finished, the Mars Hill people were practically jumping out of their chairs. I was one of the screamers. I'm sure you'll hear me on the tapes, joining the masses. He also closed with the gospel, but this time, he merely read it. And it was all about Jesus. I'm not sure the passage even referenced Satan. It was 1 John 5:20, and I don't know if he even mentioned the verse 19, which mentions Satan. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.


Pastor Mark seemed to be the only one that was challenging each and every member of the other side, bringing evidence against their points, logically articulating why they were wrong. He also defended Lobert, who at one point was under attack, ironically, about her demonic attack. The other side looked bad for continually slamming her and her experience, when she was obviously a victim. They showed little to no compassion for her, and that was the strongest argument against their side.

The Nightline debate airs this Thursday night at 11:35 on ABC. Please be praying for the ABC editors who are busily trying to trim down 2 hours of footage to 20 minutes. Pray that Jesus gets fair representation. Pray that he is glorified in the program.

Read Amy's "live tweet" of the debate and full summary. Here's the Nightline site about the show.

Amy, thanks for sharing your notes with us. And thank you, Mark, for representing the Savior and the true gospel in a difficult setting.

Posted by on March 24, 2009

Comments (30)

I'm glad Mark understands how ABC will rip up the footage and make the broadcast look the way they want. I think he was very wise to have them come on his terms and meet him on his turf. Then to just go straight up Gospel right out of the chute... :-D :-D :-D Gotta love it. Thanks for posting this...I'm totally geeked about seeing the mainstream lost culture engaged with JESUS.

Posted by Josiah Faas | March 25, 2009 10:21 AM

Check out: HIGHWAY555.blogspot.com until Josh removes this too...


Posted by Max | March 25, 2009 10:53 AM

Hi Josh,

I'm bothered tonight. I came across this lasttrumpetministries site. some of the revelations shock me. i'm praying to God to reveal to me the truth. I just want to know what's ur say about this.
here's a one of the topics:

http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/narnia_chronicles.html


thanks much!
God Bless you

Posted by Hannah_O | March 25, 2009 12:04 PM

Josh;

Mark Driscoll is certainly not representing my Savior. Because affirming the right theology is not in itself enough for one to be called a minister of Christ - just as memorizing all the Bible verses does not make one a Christian.

But one's profession of faith is to be matched by a manner of speech, life, love, faith, and purity.

The fact that even with so many resources readily available you do not seem to be able to discern the fruit of Mark's ministry - but rather, along with some older ministers who should know better, continue to speak affirmatively of it - is a cause of serious concern and a subject of continuous prayer.

Concerned member of your congregation.

Posted by Sad | March 25, 2009 12:17 PM

Dear Max,

The reason I unpublished all the comments on the Wilkerson post was that I felt they had served their purpose and I didn't like the tone of discourse. People who wanted to learn about your website had already heard about it and can find you there. But this site isn't a platform for people to promote their agendas. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop posting your website on different comment threads. Thanks.

Joshua

Posted by Joshua Harris | March 25, 2009 12:40 PM

Dear "Sad,"

If you're a member of Covenant Life, please come talk to me Sunday. I'm happy to hear your thoughts and concerns and as your pastor wouldn't want you to feel hesitancy in talking to me in person even if you disagree with me. God bless you!

Joshua

Posted by Joshua Harris | March 25, 2009 2:31 PM

Dear Josh,

I feel no hesitancy approaching you and I will most certainly do so in the future (although it will most likely not be this or next Sunday).

I mean no confrontation and I hope you sense that. The reason for posting anonymously is not to hide but rather to avoid diverting attention to issues of secondary importance (i.e. who, where, why). Because the primary issue here is the following: My pastor used a public forum again to express his affirmation of Mark Driscoll's ministry. Mark has (sadly) exhibited a consistent pattern of irreverence and impurity (in the pulpit!) bringing reproach to the gospel, causing offense to me and, I sense, to many other believers while making a public mockery of the Church's call to purity. All this "in the name" of reaching a particular segment of population. So my pastor's position on this is important to me, Josh, because the purity of my church is important to me. I pray you understand.

Consequently it did not seem to me to be inappropriate to reply to your public post publicly.

In Him and with love.

Posted by Sad | March 25, 2009 4:40 PM

Thanks, Sad. I look forward to talking.

Joshua

Posted by Joshua Harris | March 25, 2009 4:54 PM

I spent some time at Mars Hill a couple weeks back and have a deep appreciation for Mark Driscoll's work.

However in light of my own experience and the comments left by "Sad" I was wondering if I could engage you via "message" over on Facebook?

I would just like to ask your counsel/opinion on a couple items privately. Your public blog is probably not the appropriate place.

If you don't have the time considering the more important shepherding and family responsibilities you have, I understand. But I thought I'd ask if you'd be willing to field a question...

Posted by Josiah Faas | March 25, 2009 6:04 PM

Josh,
The problem is when you don't agree with the Truth which someone presents, you state that they are promoting their own agenda. I hope your readers can see through your "escape." Also, concerning your reader and person from your congregation, Sad: I,too, wrote on this blog concerning Mark D.'s impurity and Josh removed it. What kind of agenda are your promoting, Josh and does it lead people to Heaven or Hell? Yes, I will stop sending people to my website, for those who are interested do know where it is, but I would warn you concerning your deception of only printing what is agreeable to you and able to keep you in right standing with the "big ones," those pastors like Mark Driscoll. Your allegiance is surely in the wrong place and if you will not stand with God and His Truth, He will not be standing with you. I will not continue to bother you on this site, but woe to those who attend your church and listen to your sermons and read this blog. I pray earnestly that they will know the Truth and abandon you and your false message. I pray that they will run to safety -- run to God and ask Him for discernment, because I truly believe that you distort the Truth, support those who are a disgrace to Christianity and you shut down, literally, those who write Truth.

Posted by Sad too | March 25, 2009 7:55 PM

@max: Joshua Harris can delete your comments if he wants to, it's his blog. If you have a problem with his way of doing things, simply don't comment. You attack him publicly with antagonistic arguments. If he wants to keep his blog a place of friendly communication and worship, as compared to a brutal verbal battleground, that is his choice. If you seek that type of debate, try arguing with the folks at http://teampyro.blogspot.com/ or http://triablogue.blogspot.com/ . That's what they do and I'm sure they'd be glad to argue your points with you.

Posted by anonymous | March 25, 2009 9:13 PM

Mr. Harris,

I, also, do not understand your continued support of Mark Driscoll and his ministry. You and other pastors and leaders encourage purity, yet support his ministry, advertise articles of his with unbelievably crude and unholy comments, and some of you have even shared a platform with him. More than that, you speak of his "holding true to the Gospel." The Gospel that Jesus and the apostles and disciples preached was one of purity, one of righteousness . . . Going with what your father preaches at the Rebelution conference, that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, I question whether Mr. Driscoll is even a Christian. You may argue that he bears good fruit, but if those he witnesses to are willing to sit through his sermons and do not have convictions against being under the spiritual covering of someone like him and do not feel the need to stand strong against the terrible comments he has made about our Savior and Bridegroom . . . then what kind of fruit is he really bearing? I mean, would you feel comfortable discussing the sermons with and defending the habitual crudeness of Mr. Driscoll to Jesus? Then why to us, why to the Bride, why as He looks on? When will you stand by the Gospel of the Bible and defend nothing less?

I know it may seem inappropriate for me to post this, but I've repeatedly brought these concerns to you in the past and you've only ignored them. I simply feel it's important to encourage you, for the sake of your ministry, to address this issue both for your readers who agree with Mr. Driscoll (for the sake of their souls) and for your readers who feel upset (lest they abandon the good things you've done).

Sad 3,

Nicole Tera

Posted by Nicole T. | March 25, 2009 9:18 PM

Josh,

You've got a great blog going here and I appreciate your ministry. I also appreciate Driscoll's ministry and I believe that it is bearing much fruit, especially in the Seattle area (which is where I'm from originally). I think it's fine for you to moderate blog comments because it is your blog and I always thought that the main purpose of commenting was to have dialogue on the the topic of the post. Just like in a normal conversation, if someone showed up part-way through (especially if they were "anonymous") and started trying to hijack a conversation that was headed one specific direction and instead twist it to their area of concern, the conversation would come to an end and the hijacker would be asked to leave.

As far as the debate on the existence of Satan, I think it's great that Nightline is showing interest in producing things like this. Christians have been complaining for years about being left out and having garbage shoved at them by the media. It's debates like this that may open up a door for future gospel presentation on public airwaves.

One last thought about my friend Amy's observations at the debate... I thought one line summed up the opponents in a powerful way and it is a good reminder for our lives as well: "They showed little to no compassion for her, and that was the strongest argument against their side."

Keep up the great work Josh. Hopefully the gang at FamilyLife will get to see meet you when your new book is out.

ross

Posted by Happy (ross) | March 26, 2009 7:55 AM

I think we need a working definition of what "crude" is. What you may consider "crude" another may consider "not crude".

I have never heard driscoll use filthy or foul language in the pulpit.

Is his discussion of things related to sex what most people are up in arms about?

Are sexual relations between a husband and wife "crude"? If mark disagrees with your response, on which bible verse can you stand to show what takes place in the marital bed is actually "crude".

I read the bible and I see sex and sexual relations clearly discussed. Is our Lord guilty of being "crude" in his speech?

I feel like people are throwing stones at people in the camp when they throw stones at driscoll.

I pray that all would consider their ways when they speak so strongly against driscoll's ministry. Not saying that you are in sin, but rather saying that you are lacking wisdom in your actions.

Posted by Jason | March 26, 2009 11:41 AM

Wow! I am kind of shocked to read some of these comments. I was tempted to have my name be "sad not" but for numerous reasons decided not to.

I can relate to you who are against Mark Driscoll. I was too at one point. I read Radical Reformission with a very critical mindset. But now, I do not see anything wrong with his ministry. Mark Driscoll is open and honest about his struggles. He doesn't try to hide his sins and is trying not to get puffed up with pride.

I think, please correct me if I am wrong, you Christians who are against Driscoll don't like that he is engaging in culture. You don't like his methods of evangelism. To be honest I didn't either, I wanted to stick with church tradition.

Just because Driscoll talks about issue, if I may say it..."Sex" a lot from the alter, is it a sin? God created it so why can't we talked about it?

I don't know what unholy and crude comments he is making, because I have not been aware of any. He does things differently than church tradition, but God is using him to for God's glory.

Do you guys really think we need to make a fuss over this? I am thankful for Joshua Harris, John Piper, C.J. Mahaney, and other church leaders who are encouraging Driscoll to continue in his ministry. Joshua Harris' ministry will only enhance, not crumble by befriending Driscoll.

I love you guys, and I hope I didn't offend anyone.

-Justin

Posted by Justin M. Davito | March 26, 2009 7:30 PM

Wait, you guys think Mark Driscoll is too liberal??!!?

funny.

Posted by andy | March 26, 2009 8:44 PM

Um ... I really just want to talk about the debate and not Mark Driscoll ... I think the debate was entertaining but in an "American-reality TV" sort of way. There was no real debate.

What I am waiting for is a true debate with a guy like Ravi Zacharias and Richard Dawkins. No offense to the people debating on ABC, it just lacked any sort of form.

All that being said, I was encouraged to see Driscoll present the Gospel so many times in such a clear fashion. And he handled himself with humility, winsomeness, and clarity.

Posted by Chris | March 28, 2009 12:17 AM

Thanks Josh for your post. It is a shame that concerns are shifting away from what is actually being said to a different issue...which is whether we want to blacklist Mark Driscoll. I guess its not enough to be grieved over "the issues," we also have to be grieved over whether someone else is grieved about it.

Posted by Sad for different reasons | March 28, 2009 3:02 AM

Mark Driscoll HAS indeed used foul language in the pulpit, and major evangelical pastors have approached him about the issue and he has ignored them or tossed them off at the last possible moment (Phil Johnson once wrote him a letter, not criticizing him, but asking him to respond to everyone else's criticism in order to clear things up. He asked him 6 simple questions. A couple weeks later, Mark called him up and said he was going to send him a video that would answer his questions. The video didn't answer a single one and Phil never heard anything else on the matter from him). True, marital sex is not crude. But you do not talk about the intimate portions of that subject in front of a crowd of over 20,000 20-somethings, most of which aren't married. The stuff he deals with in the pulpit (masturbation, oral sex, etc), on TV, etc, should only be discussed in one-on-one conversations with a person that is struggling with that issue, and a counselor, or in a book. Joshua Harris himself, in Not Even A Hint, dealt with these types of topics. But to do so in the pulpit?! I used to be an avid, avid supporter of Mark Driscoll. I once tried to defend him against several pastors. One of them, Jerry Wragg, you may have heard of him, completely changed my opinion of him by explaining in depth that he and several other major evangelical leaders had tried to talk to him about these issues and had been completely ignored.

Additionally, if people say that these subjects should be discussed in the pulpit, I would say look to history. Look to Calvin, Luther, Edwards, or whomever you may respect in history. Did they deal with these topics? Would they approve of them being dealt with in the pulpit? No! To think that we, in this century, have come across a better, more biblical, style of worship than that practiced throughout history is arrogant!

Mark's theology is sound. But his approach to the ministry is unbiblical, and he should not be in the pulpit. He gives a wrong, bad, impression of evangelicals across the nation because of his being in the public spotlight as a result of this very controversy.

Consider what Paul has to say about leaders in the church...

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. --1 Tim 2:3-7. Does Mark Driscoll fill all these requirements?
self-controlled... he is known as "the cussing pastor" for using cusswords in the pulpit. He himself has publicly acknowledged these and that they were wrong (he lost control).
not quarrelsome... By using inappropriate language and gaining the disapproval of major evangelical leaders, Mark has indirectly and directly cause quarrels over all of Christianity.
Lastly, look at that last verse... Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. As I have said repeatedly, his actions have gained very public, very strong dissaproval from major evangelical leaders such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Jerry Wragg, etc. Yes, a few support him, but the majority either disapprove or regard him skeptically. I'll close this comment with one more verse...

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages." Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
(1Ti 5:17-20 ESV)

I think that last verse could use repeating.

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Posted by Trey Edwards | March 28, 2009 11:00 AM

Trey,

I could have sworn you were one of those boring 80 year old elders- always complaining that the youth group is playing rock music.

Dude, you are 16!

lol,

Andy

Posted by andy | March 28, 2009 1:02 PM

I think Mark did great on the debate!!! Praise Jesus. Christ was glorified. Driscoll is a gift to the church. If he is preaching on a topic that I don't think would edify me, I don't listen. But I am so thankful he tackles those hard topics for those who really need help. He who is without sin...

Posted by Desiree | March 29, 2009 1:47 AM

Just chill on the MD hate....if you are all Christians, go pick on the mormons, not the same team!

Posted by Dave Martin | March 30, 2009 9:21 PM

Mark Driscoll preaches on sex because he is being CULTURALLY RELEVANT!! The church fathers did not preach on it per se because it was not such a huge issue in that time. Christians today in general are so afraid of sex being talked about and so messed up in their thinking due to church tradition in teaching about sex that today sex is THE issue (in all shapes and forms). I am glad Mark is preaching on it. Look at the other side of the coin: So many church demoninations let pastors preach on sex who are gay, bi-sexual, or sexually immoral (hint: Ted Haggard). The very fact that Mark preaches on sex in such an open, blunt, honest and direct way shows me that he has nothing to hide and all of you who would criticize him for doing such are really uncomfortable with the topic of sex and therefore INSECURE. Get over it! Try to embrace what God would have for you and look at your own heart first. Take the plank out of your own eye before trying to get the speck out of Mark's eye!!

Posted by Josh Parsons | April 4, 2009 1:11 AM

I agree with Josh Parsons. Most of his church members are recent converts with very liberal and secular worldviews. He preaches on sex all the time because most of his church has no idea what the Biblical views are because they are so new. I'm really glad he's preaching on these topics because people NEED to know ALL of Scripture taught from the pulpit. It says "ALL Scripture is God-breathed and useful for TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING, and TRAINING in righteousness...(2 Tim 3:16). If talking about the Biblical views of sex in church is "off limits" (as decided by WHO????), what other topics are "off limits?"

Posted by Amanda Cone | April 5, 2009 4:40 PM

Since when are Christians commanded to be culturally relevant? Many of the rules that were given to the Isrealites were given simply because it was the opposite of what the cultures around them practiced, so they would stand out as different. we are to be IN the culture, as in living in it, but not OF the culture, as in becoming like it, or changing our ways to become more "relevant".

Posted by anonymous | April 7, 2009 4:08 PM

Since when are Christians commanded to be culturally relevant? Many of the rules that were given to the Israelites were given simply because it was the opposite of what the cultures around them practiced, so they would stand out as different. we are to be IN the culture, as in living in it, but not OF the culture, as in becoming like it, or changing our ways to become more "relevant".

Posted by anonymous | April 7, 2009 4:10 PM

Yes. "Not of the world" meaning not engaging in SIN as they do. Taking this verse out of context to support your dislike of modern evangelical techniques is unreasonable. What sets us apart from the culture is our steadfast desire to avoid sin and serve the Lord. That will ALWAYS set us apart.

Posted by agnes | April 17, 2009 7:43 PM

Josh,

I am a new attender of the Sovereign Grace church in Frederick. I visited the Gaithersburg church twice, and then found out about the frederick location which is much closer.

I have benefited VERY much from Mark Driscoll's ministry, more than from anyone else's. I have never met him, spoken by internet or phone with him.. But his teaching has crafted me to be a much more mature christian.

He has used 'filthy language', and in the pulpit, at times. A few weeks ago, he said ' Who in the hell do you think you are?'...

I guess the reason I don't see a problem there is because I see no problem in mere words, but the usage of said words. Why ought only the sinful folks who are falsely indoctrinating our friends and family be allowed to use words of great passion?

I am not saying Pastor Mark has been completely sinless with his tongue, and I doubt you or any other pastor can honestly say that. Who can stand in front of a huge crowd, weekly, and speak for a half an hour or longer, and not occasionally drop the ball. We're mortal, are we not?

But I do believe the main issues people have with Dricoll's methods are ones that are very subjective. If one takes into account his context, the people he is focusing most on reaching with the gospel, and the setting in which he says some of the things he says they are not as shocking.

And to my understanding, Paul has said some pretty shocking things himself.

Thanks for being a supporter of Pastor Mark, and I would also like to say that I've learned very much from your teaching, which I have been listening to online for years.

God bless you,
Richard

Posted by RDFoltz | August 7, 2009 1:03 AM


"self-controlled... he is known as "the cussing pastor" for using cusswords in the pulpit. He himself has publicly acknowledged these and that they were wrong (he lost control)."

He is a human being. If we never lost control, we would never sin, and we would be perfect, which of course is impossible.

"not quarrelsome... By using inappropriate language and gaining the disapproval of major evangelical leaders, Mark has indirectly and directly cause quarrels over all of Christianity.
Lastly, look at that last verse... Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. As I have said repeatedly, his actions have gained very public, very strong dissaproval from major evangelical leaders such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Jerry Wragg, etc. Yes, a few support him, but the majority either disapprove or regard him skeptically."

Look at how the respected religious "leaders" of Jesus' day regarded Him! They hated Him so much they had Him crucified! I am not trying to compare Mark Driscoll to Jesus, my point is just that sometimes you can't help what people think about you. And if you are telling the truth, a lot of people will dislike you. Religious people love to fight and argue about little things and get all in a tizzy about things they consider controversial. I have news for you, Jesus was controversial. He purposely did things in front of "religious" people to tick them off and show them how legalistic and petty they really were. And how self righteous because they were so proud of themselves for keeping all these traditional, man-made rules. Jesus' message to them was "You're missing the point!" These days we are so caught up in arguing over worship styles, whether women can wear pants or not, the difference between "knocking boots" and "fornication"....geez! Do they mean the same thing or not? Why is one phrase sinful? Absolutely ridiculous! I once joked that I was gonna start letting my kids say "piss" instead of "pee" because it's it the Bible. All this focus on stupid, petty things just distracts us from what really matters. And all this division among followers of Christ is such a poor testimony for unbelievers.
"May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
John 17:23

Posted by Sandy | August 18, 2009 1:05 PM

The one point everyone is overlooking about MD...we are called to live lives of holiness. Departing from the unclean things. Casting off the unprofitable works of darkness. Such language may be "culturally relevant" but we are called out from among them. How are we to shine the light of Christ in a wicked and perverse time if there is no difference in our conversation? We are to be separate in our conducts...we are not to bring reproach...when we do...something is wrong! We must watch those that cause division among us. The foul language does not teach of holiness...it teaches that you can be just as foul mouthed and vulgar as a Christian as you can a sinner....and that nothing is wrong with it. That is not a call to live a holy life. Not at all. Remember, we are all held accountable to every idle word that comes from our mouths. What comes from the heart of a man, this defiles him.

Posted by Ashley | September 29, 2009 3:40 PM

Post a comment

Please enter the letter "g" in the field below:

All content on this site is © 2007 Josh Harris