What is his son's name?

Like the Psalter, the book of Proverbs is a highly edited work: an editor or editors compiled the writings of a number of authors and arranged them into the form we have today. The last two chapters of Proverbs are made up of several poetic compositions, each with a distinct authorial voice. The longest of these is Proverbs 30 (33 verses), attributed to "Agur, son of Jakeh" (Proverbs 30:1). Agur is otherwise unknown in Scripture, and as a Proverbs geek I have subscribed to, and then discarded, any number of theories as to his identity. While I no longer need to guess whether Agur is a pseudonymn for Jacob, Solomon, Hezekiah, or anyone else, I do think his description as the "son of Jakeh" offers insight into the choices made by the editors of the book of Proverbs.

Proverbs 30:4 is a riddle (Proverbs 1:6), or more precisely a double riddle: "What is his name, and what is his son's name?" The first question is easily answered, as the previous 4 lines are rhetorical questions which clearly point to Yahweh, the Lord God of Israel, particularly as he describes himself in Job 38-41. To the second question, the Christian will want to answer "Jesus!" but this answer is disqualified because it would be inaccessible to Proverbs' original audience. Lest any suggest this might be a prophecy of Christ, that answer is more strongly disqualified because it is heresy: the Son of God is God; he himself is Yahweh, the Lord God of Israel, and thus is not his own son.

I prefer to look more closely within the context of Proverbs 30 to find "his son," especially since this is the only work of Agur which we have. The only other mention of a "son" in Proverbs 30 is in the aforementioned Proverbs 30:1: "Agur, son of Jakeh." If that's so, then Agur is the son of Proverbs 30:4 and "Jakeh" is a name for the Lord. Back in the 1970s, P. Skehan suggested "Jakeh" might be an acronymn (in the original Hebrew) for "Jahweh, blessed is He." I tend to think Skehan is correct on that; even if not, the simplest answer to Proverbs 30:4 is that Agur is a son of the Lord.

As Proverbs 30:1-9 makes clear, Agur is the Lord's son because he has learned to depend utterly and absolutely upon his God. In particular, he depends on God's every Word (Proverbs 30:5-6).

That, I think, is why Proverbs 30 was placed towards the end of the book. Even a casual glance at the preceding twenty-nine chapters indicates the book's governing metaphor is a father giving Biblically-based advice to his son. Because Proverbs is Scripture, that father, ultimately, is the Lord. Agur learned wisdom by depending entirely on God's Word, and has become a faithful son of the Lord. The editors of Proverbs suggest, in turn, that if you have learned the wisdom of the Proverbs, you too are a faithful son of God.

My comments on the BSA membership requirements change

The Boy Scouts of America have provided the text of the "Membership Standards Resolution." You should read it; it won't take too long. While the content will be far more meaningful to those of us who have lived within the BSA culture, the language is fairly plain and accessible. As a Scouter (i.e., adult leader/volunteer), I have had to decide what this this resolution means for me and my family, but more on that some other time. Here I want simply to present some analysis of the decision.

In defense of the national council, the resolution makes a valid point when it says, "youth are still developing, learning about themselves and who they are, developing their sense of right and wrong, and understanding their duty to God to live a moral life…." In other words, "Hey, these are adolescent kids we're working with here, and they're all pretty confused about sexuality and everything else." Fair enough. I've spent some time around late-night campfires listening to Scouts discuss life, the universe, and everything; anyone who's done that knows a teenage boy will often question the existence of God but never really be an agnostic, let alone an atheist. No reasonable person would suggest barring a boy from membership simply because he was wondering about his place in the world and his relationship to the religions of the world, and the Membership Standards Resolution suggests we ought to be likewise inclined with regard to sexuality.

However, the comparison with atheism is apt because the BSA has a long history of denying membership to youth who are avowed atheists. Youth are prone to wonder whether God exists, but a Scout is reverent and atheism cannot be reverence. Likewise, I'm sure there have been any number of sexually-confused youth in Scouting programs over the years, but up until now the BSA has recognized that avowed homosexuality is not "morally straight." A Scout is kind, and Scouters ought not think adherence to the Scout Law is something other than kind.

In my opinion, there's not simply an analogy between a Scout's duty to God and to be morally straight, and that seems to be the opinion of the national council as well. The second and third "whereases" of the Membership Standards Resolution reiterate the BSA's commitment to reverence, and methinks the national council doth protest too much. "Morally straight" has historically had an objective content (implicitly, if not always explicitly, the Ten Commandments as popularly understood) because morality must be rooted in supernatural revelation: that is, "morally straight" is ultimately an aspect of "duty to God." The BSA has chosen to ignore every world religion's definition of morality. If human beings can define morality, rather than God, then duty to God has been subverted and will, in time, be rejected.

In other words, if the definition of "morally straight" can be upended by a single vote, then why can't "duty to God" be redefined as "don't cuss too much"?

At this point, it might appear I'm making a slippery slope argument, so I want to make clear I'm arguing the BSA didn't slip. At one fell swoop, it plunged right over the edge of the cliff into the bottomless moral abyss of contemporary American popular relativism. And frankly, that's why I feel so betrayed and angry. A Scout is trustworthy, and the national leadership of the BSA has demonstrated it can't be trusted to maintain a commitment to the Scout Law for so much as a single year. I believe in the Scout Oath and Law, but the BSA's national leadership has demonstrated it does not.

I'd like to think this is the beginning of the end. Sadly, it seems to me much more like the end.

Thanks, Ken Myers!

As you may have noticed, the sky is falling, if by "sky" one means "the universal human consensus on marriage extant since before the dawn of time itself." Much like the air we breathe, said consensus was so ubiquitous that no one bothered giving it much thought; now that it's under assault, many of us have difficulty identifying its under-pinnings and essential elements (just as I really don't know how much nitrogen I should be mixing in with my oxygen).

Thankfully, there's Robert George and this interview Ken Myers did with him for the Mars Hill Audio Journal. It helpfully and (relatively) briefly lays out the significance of the current efforts to redefine marriage for our culture and, potentially, the Church. George explains why marriage is much more than a matter of individual choice or preference. 

Because Ken Myers is not only kind to children and small animals, but also wants the broader Christian community to thoughtfully respond to the surrounding culture, he has made the interview available for FREE. (Please note: you will have to create an account in order to access the file.)

I hope this will be of use to you as you consider how your Christian commitment affects your response to the cultural shifts already afoot.

Patriot Day?

Being a Scout leader has introduced me to all sorts of things of which I might otherwise be blissfully unaware, amongst which is Patriot Day. For the blissfully unaware, "Patriot Day" is the official, federal-government sanctioned term for September 11 as a day of remembrance. While I'm sure it seemed to the U.S. Congress a good idea at the time to try to turn a day of mourning into a day of celebration of that which makes America great, I'm equally sure some more sober reflection would  have been an even better idea.

To illustrate, let us turn (as we must) to today's comics section. As always, Patrick McDonnell (Mutts) nails it with understated poignancy.

In One Big Happy, Rick Detorie is both serious and utterly appropriate.

Mother Goose and Grimm lost whatever mojo it might have once had a long, long time ago. This contribution is weak, but one appreciates the sentiment and effort.

 

And then there's Blondie. Oh, dear, is there ever Blondie.

 

And we're done. Flag-waving displays of patriotism have their place at 4th of July parades and pep rallies, but as working cartoonists and other persons with souls know, there is also a place and time for solemn remembrance. The adolescence of our present generation of national leaders is nowhere more on display than in the attempt to designate September 11 "Patriot Day." I don't know what the nation did to commemorate the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1953, but I guarantee you it did not involve festive displays of bunting.

Now, it may be unfair to compare those behind "Patriot Day," all of whom I'm sure are kind to children and small animals, to a comic strip which was mildly good 75 years ago but now has turned into the worst example of machine-shopped, worn trope-peddling, committee produced "funny page" soullessness. On the other hand, what more can one say about a generation which does not recognize a time to mourn?

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:     

a time to be born, and a time to die;

     a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
     a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
     a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
     a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
     a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
     a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
     a time for war, and a time for peace.

(Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)

A complaint against the NCFIC confession

The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches is the leading voice amongst those who believe the pressing need of the day for Christians is to focus on, well, the family. As such, the organization has produced "A Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family." To presbyterians possessed of a high ecclesiology, said confession rather notably fails to stand in the magisterial Reformation tradition of wise reflection and careful use and definition of terms. However, not all presbyterians are possessed of such an ecclesiology, and any number of presbyterian sessions have joined their baptist, evangelical, and congregationalist brethren in affirming said confession.

The advisability of agreeing to any "confession" beyond the ones which define one's membership in a particular denomination is an interesting topic, well worthy of discussion and debate. The advisability of agreeing to this particular confession, however, is not, as it is manifestly unadvisable. Sadly, the meretriciousness of a position is usually far more obvious to the beholder than to its holder, and finding a clear, indisputable failing on which all parties might agree can be extremely difficult. Nonetheless, as two sessions in our presbytery have agreed to the NCFIC's confession, our own session has decided to present a formal complaint against them.

In presbyterian polity, a "complaint" is an instrument by which an individual or a church court (ex. a session or presbytery) alleges a church court has committed a serious error. In this case, our session believes the NCFIC's confession asserts that any activities which segregate participants by age or gender (such as Sunday School programs, men's and women's Bible studies, or youth groups) are in violation of Scripture. Our session alleges that agreement to the NCFIC's confession is a de facto allegation that sister Churches are violating God's Word, and that such an allegation should be adjudicated in the Church courts, not loosely bandied about on the internet.

As other individuals and sessions might be interested in filing similar complaints, I provide a model, based on our own, in .pdf. It was written following the rules of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's Book of Discipline, but might prove a useful jumping-off point for those in other communions. I have italicized the portions which reference where specific information regarding congregations, etc, must be found on the internet: you'll have to figure out your own hyperlinks.

This complaint was thoroughly discussed in session before its final draft, and earlier versions received comment from outside parties. Several suggested we should also complain against the NCFIC's confession's use of proof texts, largely because a great many of the texts cited do not support the points which they supposedly prove. However, we believed that line of argument, while entirely valid, would get us lost deep in the weeds of exegetical argument and possibly obscure an otherwise straightforward complaint. In Church law as in all law, a clean argument stands a far better chance of success than a complicated and overly detailed one.

The gears of presbyterian courts grind slowly, and I don't know how this complaint will fare or when it will be resolved. In the meantime, I hope and pray this model might prove useful to Church officers similarly distressed by the choice of some brethren to throw in their lot with the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches.

And yes, your questions are welcome.

The Coming Collapse of the PC(USA)

Yes, those of us who pay attention to these things were entirely aware of the demographic declension which inevitably results from doctrinal declension a long time ago. But now the Presbyterian Church (USA) has done a study which proves it. With numbers!