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

[keely emerinemix]

Ornithology and theology ought never to mix, Carl, so the answer is "no."

Besides, the tutu was an entirely foreign idea to the Hebrews and the 
Greeks, although lyrics to "Tu Tu Tutsie Goodbye" have been found in some 
later NT texts . . .

keely




From: "Carl Westberg" <carlwestberg846 at hotmail.com>
To: Vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Reply to Keely,Michael & Jackie on Imprecatory 
Prayer
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:40:11 -0800

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



=======================================================
  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
=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series.  Who will win? 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001