But today I'm going to talk about Rush Limbaugh anyway. I first had contact with Rush back in the late 1970s and early '80s when he was director of promotions for the Kansas City Royals. Seemed like a decent, helpful guy any time I spoke with him, which wasn't terribly often.
My read on his talk radio career is that he started out as an entertainer with an edge of braggadocio and eventually started to take himself seriously. (Big mistake.)
Nowadays I tune in Rush for up to two minutes at a time up to once a week, which, frankly, is about all I can stand of him, just to remind myself why I don't listen to him. And one of the reasons for my lack of enthusiasm is that he frequently says such profoundly foolish things.
There was another example of this recently when he declared that you can't simultaneously believe in God and believe that humans have affected climate change.
Well, that's a paraphrase. Let's let him speak for himself:
See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming … You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something that he can’t create.
The piece to which I've linked you above offers some critiques the Great Rushbo's thinking and points to lots of examples of folks who trust God but also trust the evidence that climate change is real and that humans are contributing to it -- the latter being a position nearly the whole of reputable science today affirms.
It's folks like Limbaugh who contribute to the idea that science and religion must always disagree about everything important. That, too, is a nincompoop position, by the way. And just so you know, it's also true that anyone who uses the word nincompoop more than about once a year is a publicity seeker, wrong, annoying, cloying and/or repugnant.
* * *
THE ATONEMENT DEBATE WIDENS
The other day here on the blog I wrote about the various ways in which hymns teach theology. The context was the recent story about a hymn called "In Christ Alone" not being included in a new Presbyterian hymnal because its lyrics reflect a deep attachment to a theory of the atonement called the penal substitutionary theory. That debate and discussion seems to be widening. Here's a piece that describes some of that. I love it when people are debating real issues of theology instead of the color of the carpet in the sanctuary.