It seems that most of my recent posts have been about Glen Beck. I thought I was over writing about him until I read this week’s New York Times Magazine cover story.
The article, which attempts to make Beck seem reasonably sensible, often refers to Beck role as a historian. According to the writer, who followed Beck around on some recent lectures, “‘several people at Beck’s events described themselves as ‘students of history’ or ‘historians.’
Here is the kicker:
Beck’s Anchorage show started late — around 9 p.m. — and Beck was still speaking as 11 o’clock approached. He kept going, and going, and delivered a stem-winding ending about how George Washington became terrified at the end of his life about doing something that would dishonor himself and his country. I looked around the crowd of about 4,000, and it seemed no one had left. The room was perfectly silent after two hours plus — late on a Saturday night — to hear a self-described “recovering dirtbag” with not a single college credit to his name teach them history.
The same thing could be said of Beck’s role as public theologian.
Would you let a doctor look at your MRI and make a diagnosis if he couldn’t even make it through a community college program? Would you let a lawyer represent you in a case if they had only taken one single law school class and then dropped out before the semester was over?
It is not a perfect analogy but that is what happens every time Beck goes on the air and makes claims that no serious historian or theologian could support.