Mark Driscoll and Richard Dawkings
In looking at the so called 'cussing pastor' Mark Driscoll, he of Mars Hill Church Seattle USA, and at Richard Dawkins, doyen of most atheists, if not all scientists as he’d like to be, I noticed that they are very much in the same vein as each other.
Driscoll’s personality is audacious, brash, sarcastic, opinionated, and brusque, which I think he enjoys as being seen as such. And it seems this style is self-serving as he is thus able to say powerful and perceptive things in a way that makes others sit up and listen, whether they agree with him or not. It’s his personality that is on show though, not necessarily the word of the bible. One commentator of Driscoll thought that the truth of what Driscoll says is “immediately obvious”. Actually it is not. It is the gospel seen and used by Mark Driscoll, and not necessarily the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that is seen and heard by those listening and watching. There is much that Driscoll ignores from the gospel because it does not suit his stance on things. That’s ok with me, because the one good thing about modern day media is that you can turn it off if you don't like it, or walk out of a service if it's not to your liking. Driscoll's personality style leads me onto Richard Dawkins, in whom I see the same behaviour pattern.
Dawkins too is audacious, brash, sarcastic, opinionated and brusque. And he too, like Driscoll, seems to enjoys being seen as that way, with this type of style serving him just as well in his rant against those of a religious nature, and those who disagree with him on his version of ethology - the study of animal behaviour and a branch of zoology - and evolution biology - a sub-field of biology concerned with the origin of species from a common descent and descent of species. Dawkins is also able to say powerful and perceptive things in a way that makes others sit up and listen, whether they agree with him or not. But once again, like Driscoll, its his personality on show, especially when speaking about religion, and sometimes also when he talks about science outside his field. The truth of what Dawkins says is, like Driscoll’s truth, not "immediately obvious".
Neither Dawkins or Driscoll leave room for the greys with their black and white arguments. Which is a shame because they both have the ability to open up their subjects to an audience that is fed up with black and white and not only see grey but colour as well. But then they wouldn’t be Mark Driscoll and Richard Dawkins would they?