[Vision2020] Reply to Keely, Michael & Jackie on Imprecatory Prayer

[Carl Westberg]

So....when Johnny Carson said ''May the bird of paradise lay a ta-ta on your 
tutu", was that imprecatory prayer, also?    Carl Westberg Jr.


>From: "Taro Tanaka" <taro_tanaka at hotmail.com>
>To: Vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Reply to Keely, Michael & Jackie on Imprecatory 
>Prayer
>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:18:10 +0000
>
>I'm truly grateful for Jackie, Michael, and Keely's responses to me on the
>topic of imprecatory prayer. I didn't expect to win any converts to my
>position, but at least we seem to have been able to agree that there is 
>such
>a thing as a legitimate time, place, and occasion for imprecatory prayer.
>Apart from whether specific instances of Doug Wilson's imprecatory prayers
>are biblically justifiable, simply the fact that the possibility of
>legitimate imprecatory prayer has been confirmed strikes me as significant.
>
>One thing that can hardly be lost on anyone reading the Bible is the fact
>that there is a lot more imprecatory prayer to be found in the Hebrew
>scriptures than in the Greek. Conversely, in the Greek scripters there is
>greater emphasis on self-sacrificial love and forgiveness toward people who
>deserve just the opposite. It is vitally important for us to remember these
>are differences of degree of emphasis rather than a radical dichotomy. When
>Jesus gave the commandment that we should love our neighbors as our selves,
>He was quoting from the law of Moses. Conversely, as we shall confirm once
>again below, the Greek scriptures make multiple clear affirmations of the
>legitimacy of imprecatory prayer, at least for certain times, places and
>occasions. Therefore a radical dichotomy between the old covenant and the
>new, in which the essential characters of each are seen as mutually
>irreconcilable, is not faithful to scripture. A rather superficial reading
>of the Bible -- one paying so much attention to the interpretative "big
>picture" that important contravening details get overlooked -- might be
>tempted to conclude that to the extent that imprecatory prayer ever had any
>legitimate place in biblical religion, it was purely an "Old Testament"
>phenomenon, and has no place in the much more advanced era of "New 
>Testament
>religion." A typical expression of this idea can be found in liberal
>theologian Rudolf Bultmann, who radicalized the Lutheran law-gospel dualism
>and imposed an existential unhistorical understanding of the gospel which
>led him to say in 1933, "To the Christian faith the Old Testament is no
>longer revelation as it has been and still is for the Jews . . . The events
>which meant something for Israel, which were God's word, mean nothing more
>to us." He still retains a use for the Old Testament, but only as the dark
>foil that illumines the gospel.
>
>Bultmann's approach opens up a real can of worms, ultimately doing violence
>to the orthodox understanding of God Himself. Although it is true that 
>there
>are huge changes and genuine advances brought about in the transition from
>the old covenant to the new (e.g., a much greater outpouring of the Holy
>Spirit), God's eternal character remains unchanging.
>
>Keely seems to clearly recognize the fact that God's character is eternally
>unchanging, and, since (unlike Bultmann) she wants to retain the full
>authority of the entire Bible as Scripture, she seems to be of the view 
>that
>no approval is given by the divine Author of Scripture to the imprecatory
>prayers found in the Book of Psalms -- or at least, she seems to be sure
>that God never approved of the prayers that offend her -- "Blessed shall he
>be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock," etc. Her
>view seems to be that those parts are recorded in Scripture, but that does
>not mean God has put his stamp of approval on those utterances, any more
>than He put His stamp of approval on David's adultery with Bathsheba or
>murder of Uriah. In Keely's view, we are simply to learn from the 
>psalmist's
>negative, sinful example when we read much, if not all, of the content of
>imprecatory psalms. (At least, that is the general direction I take Keely 
>to
>be coming from. I hope Keely will accept my apologies and correct me if I
>have seriously misrepresented her stance in this paragraph, but in any case
>it represents one way of (mis)understanding the imprecatory psalms that is
>fairly common today.)
>
>One problem the above stance runs into is, Paul commands Christians to pray
>and sing the psalms (Eph. 5:19), and he doesn't say, "except for the
>imprecatory psalms." The command is to continue to use all of them,
>including the imprecatory psalms that call for God's destruction -- AND
>CONVERSION, please note -- of the wicked (Psalms 74, 83, etc.). This 
>blanket
>commandment that we continue to use the psalms presents a real problem for
>what I take to be Keely's position. If that position was correct, then Paul
>wouldn't be telling us to keep on using those psalms.
>
>Another point typically overlooked by evangelicals hostile to the use of
>imprecatory prayer is the fact that the numerous imprecations are found in
>the New Testament coming directly from the lips of Jesus and the apostles.
>For example, In Matthew 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 27, and 29, Jesus unleashes 
>a
>scathing seven-fold curse upon the Pharisees. Do these utterances 
>contradict
>the love of God? -- obviously not. Messiah is delivering a covenantal
>lawsuit that will put an end to the misbehavior of the Jewish religious
>leaders of that era either through repentance unto life or judgment unto
>destruction. This is a loving warning of the certain negative sanctions 
>that
>await those who have perverted the law of God if they do not repent.
>
>Likewise, the apostle Paul declares anathema (eternal condemnation) upon
>anyone "who loves not the Lord Jesus" in 1 Corinthians 16:22. In Galatians
>1:8 Paul pronounces a curse upon heretics who seek to pervert the church,
>and in chapter 5:12 he prays that they would be emasculated and neutered
>lest their heresy reproduce. In 2 Timothy 4:14 Paul uses imprecatory
>language when he declares that Alexander the metal worker (who resisted and
>caused great damage to Paul's ministry) be repaid according to his deeds.
>Note that this is the same Paul who authored the great passage on love in 1
>Corinthians 13. Paul was being no more schizophrenic than the Son of God 
>was
>when He preached love and also threatened destruction.
>
>The general consensus of Jackie, Keely, and Michael in response to my
>reference to the imprecatory prayer of the saints in Revelation seemed to 
>be
>that imprecatory prayer could be justified in that particular case because
>of the fact that people had been killed as martyrs for their faith, but
>imprecatory prayer was nevertheless an inappropriate (i.e., sinful) 
>response
>in lesser cases. Well, take a look at the examples I just gave above. ALL 
>of
>them constitute "lesser" cases. Eternal destruction for not loving Jesus?
>Eternal cursing of heretics? This is serious stuff, and for a lot less than
>what the martyred saints in Revelation had to go through. Even if you still
>happen to think that Doug Wilson has gone overboard with his particular
>imprecatory prayers, if you want to be in harmony with what the Bible 
>itself
>shows us, I think you have to allow more room for imprecatory prayer than
>you seem to have been willing to allow.
>
>Were imprecatory prayers appropriate for people under the Abrahamic, Mosaic
>and Davidic covenants? If so, then they are appropriate for us, for, as 
>Paul
>says in Galatians, we are all "Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."
>Are imprecatory prayers appropriate for Messiah? Keely has already conceded
>that much. If so, then they are appropriate for us, since Christians are 
>all
>members of His body. Messiah's Bride, the Church, is joined to Messiah so
>that we are "one flesh" with Him. As evidence of this, recall what Jesus
>said when he confronted Paul on the road to Damascus: "Saul, Saul, why are
>you persecuting Me?" An assault on the church is an assault on her Head.
>When anyone persecutes the church, he persecutes the Husband and Messiah of
>the church. That's why God has given us imprecatory prayers. In so many
>words, God informs us, "Honey, when anyone persecutes you, you just holler,
>and I'll take care of things for you."
>
>Now, lest my last sentence be misunderstood, that does not necessarily mean
>that a giant Monty Python foot is going to come down from Heaven and squish
>the church's enemies like so many bugs when the church prays for
>deliverance. The church in the Roman Empire prayed imprecatory prayers for
>deliverance from their persecutors, and God did grant the church 
>deliverance
>and victory. But that deliverance and victory came through the outpouring 
>of
>the innocent blood of Christian martyrs over the span of three centuries.
>Father knows best, but if humans had written the script for that segment of
>history, it would never in anyone's wildest imagination have turned out the
>way it did. God often works in mysterious ways, and his ways of answering
>imprecatory prayer are no exception.
>
>Doug Wilson prayed what he prayed and he can speak for himself, but I find
>it hard to believe that his understanding of imprecatory prayer is so
>shallow that he doesn't understand the sorts of things I have been
>explaining in these posts. That's why I think he has been misunderstood by
>you folks on Vision 2020. It's either that or else he has been clearly
>understood by people who are seriously not right with God and not repenting
>when they ought to be repenting.
>
>And now I would like to recommend considering the psychology of the
>persecutor and its implications for us. Messiah said to His disciples 
>during
>the last supper, " . . . the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will
>think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you,
>because they have not known the Father, nor me." The persecutor is 
>convinced
>in his heart that he is doing good, and that it is the persecuted party who
>is wrong. In other words, the persecutor is convinced that he is not
>persecuting at all, but rather serving and honoring God. So who is
>persecutor, and who is persecuted? Who is truly serving and honoring God,
>and who is in grave danger of judgment despite the conviction in his heart
>that he is doing what is right? If you were the persecutor, how would you 
>be
>able to recognize that fact and repent of your persecution?
>
>It took Saul an act of divine intervention on the road to Damascus in order
>to be able to see himself as he really was. Without that, he would never
>have been able to recognize that he had been wickedly persecuting people 
>who
>were righteous. I believe that act of divine intervention occurred in
>response to the imprecatory prayers offered up by the persecuted church.
>
>So, if you are a Christian on either side of this confrontation, shouldn't
>YOU be praying imprecatory prayers, after a fashion? Who is right, and who
>is wrong? Who is persecuting, and who is persecuted? Wouldn't you like to
>see the answers to such questions made as plain as day for the whole world
>to see beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, to God's greater
>glorification and the advancement of righteousness? Then please pray to God
>that He would grant His judgment and declare it loud and clear for His
>glorification and our edification! It's not something to be done lightly;
>calling for God to come in judgment could, in a worst-case scenario, result
>in someone experiencing a lot of pain in some form or another, and, as the
>Bible shows, even death is not an inconceivable result. But whenever God
>comes in judgment, it is always for the ultimate salvation of the 
>righteous,
>and that is something to be welcomed. Also, because God is righteous, His
>judgments are never excessively harsh, and that's to be welcomed too.
>
>Getting back to the specific responses I have received, Michael says it
>would be a good idea to make my theology illegal. No persecution there, eh?
>Heaven forbid that he would persecute anyone while having them declared
>illegal on account of the content of their prayers.
>
>Keely says "questions about zoning, tax exemption, bigotry, sexism,
>adjudication and counsel of sex offenders, gambling, aberrant theology and
>ecclesiastical dealings are the price you pay for arrogant behavior, even 
>if
>the questions themselves fail to result in de jure or de facto conviction
>[i.e., even if you are an entirely law-abiding member of the community].
>This isn't persecution, and sure isn't martyrdom or anything close to it.
>The only thing I see being killed at Christ Church is the noxious weed of
>privilege, bigotry, patriarchy, and arrogance." Again, Heaven forbid that
>Keely would persecute anyone while repeatedly "raising questions" (i.e.,
>harassing and slandering) over the legal exercise of constitutionally
>protected religious freedoms by fellow Christians acting in accord with
>their convictions of conscience.
>
>Is now not a good time for God to come in judgment? Let Him judge and make
>clear who is persecuting, and who is persecutor, and let the world know the
>result and learn to kiss the Son in reverent awe. I'm praying for that, and
>I hope you are too. And I hope, by God's grace, that the result might be
>like the transformation of the unrighteous, persecuting Saul to the
>righteous Paul on the road to Damascus.
>
>-- Princess Sushitushi
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song.  Get a customized station.  Try MSN Radio powered 
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001