Three Things That Are Too Wonderful for Joe Rogan, Four He Does Not Understand

Agur son of Jakeh, described in Proverbs 30 as simply "the oracle," says there are three or four things that really blow his mind.  "Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a virgin." In watching The Joe Rogan Experience #1895 - Matt Walsh, it seems there are a few things that are too wonderful for Rogan, and a few more that he just doesn't understand. For instance, he says relationships in our society are in a bad condition, not because of gay marriage, but because of high divorce rates and failed marriages. But Rogan doesn’t see how gay marriage harms heterosexual married couples. And to that I would say that in so far as society will get more of what it affirms and celebrates, we will get fewer marriages to the extent cultural support for marriage decreases. But Rogan doesn’t see why a gay or lesbian couple shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. And his blind spot is pretty clearly the relational and developmental malnourishment – spiritually, mentally, and emotionally – which Walsh is speaking to when he says a father and mother each make valuable and irreplaceable contributions in the rearing of children. But Rogan doesn’t pick up on the point, and why is that? Rogan also doesn’t understand why the point and purpose of marriage should be procreation. Instead, he recognizes that we are devaluing the marriages of couples who do not have children if we say the point of marriage is to have children. But why, if he sees that, does he miss Walsh's point about heterosexual marriage? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If there is a correlation here in these dynamics, it works in both directions. But if this does not work in one direction, it does not work in the other.  I think anyone who holds to Rogan's combination of positions is stubbornly wishcasting. What else can we conclude when someone insists on the correlation being causation so long as we get what we want and avoid what we don’t want? What other explanation makes sense when someone denies the causal link only when it is inconvenient to our desires? Yet Rogan returns again and again to the question of “But what if they want this?” Or, “But what if they don’t want that?” Yet I would point out the question he does not ask. Even as he is acutely preoccupied with what we want, he is not at all asking about what God wants. Thankfully, Matt Walsh's parents told him and his siblings they would have their back when they attended public school growing up. If they got in trouble with teachers or administrators for doing what was right, or telling what was true, they would not be in trouble when they got home. And this, I think, is what we ought to credit our knowing Walsh's name to - that his parents were more concerned with goodness and truth than they were with going along to get along. That might not be the way of an eagle in the sky, or a serpent on a rock, or a ship on the high seas. But that is part and parcel of the way of a man with a virgin in the best sense. And that is the way of a worldview and approach to culture building that is fertile rather than sterile. Speaking of fertility, what's up with women on birth control being more attracted to men with less masculine features? Is this a part of the puzzle we've given too little attention to? I think it might just be.