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

[Art Deco]

Keely writes:

"Further, the Princess' torrent of words obscures rather than illumines, and 
his suggestion that "harassment" and "slander" is directed toward the Kirk 
for no reason other than hatred toward God -- and to a degree that rises to 
the level of persecution unto martyrdom -- simply boggles the mind."

Aside from showing himself by these words as being in a state of deep 
delusion needing intense forensic intervention, perhaps it also shows that 
it has been a long time since Princess Doug has been thoroughly wormed.

W.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
To: <taro_tanaka at hotmail.com>; <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Reply to Keely,Michael & Jackie on Imprecatory 
Prayer


>I don't agree that there is a time, place, and occasion for imprecatory
> prayer against specific individuals.
>
> Neither do I think that my not praying imprecatorily is a sin; in fact, it
> seems a much more God-honoring risk than praying harm on His enemies would
> be.
>
> Further, the Princess' torrent of words obscures rather than illumines, 
> and
> his suggestion that "harassment" and "slander" is directed toward the Kirk
> for no reason other than hatred toward God -- and to a degree that rises 
> to
> the level of persecution unto martyrdom -- simply boggles the mind.
>
> keely
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> =======================================================
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
> Sales & Deals
> http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================