The Gospel of Feelgoodism

On May 20, John Mark Reynolds posted a piece in which he marshaled several arguments for the proposition that Christians had a duty to pray for Ted Kennedy, who is suffering from inoperable brain cancer:

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/05/20/prayers-for-senator-kennedy/

On May 22, I posted a piece in which I questioned his reasoning:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/should-we-pray-for-ted-kennedy.html

This provoked a lot of hostile reaction. Peter Pike weighed in with some supportive, independent, and customarily trenchant comments of his own—which also provoked a hostile reaction. Before I respond to the specifics, I’ll begin with a general observation. To judge by their behavior, most of our critics fall within a familiar, if unfortunate, Biblical classification. As one scholar explains:

“The proverb shifts…to the hothead, a specific type of fool to which the untutored son is liable…’the hothead’ is expanded to ‘you will do so again’ (i.e., he will again vent his heated emotions intentionally against the perceived offender and unintentionally against himself)…The hothead is characterized by a heated excitement and resentment against a perceived offender, not by love for him (see 19:11). The proverb teaches that bailing him out of trouble is counterproductive. A hothead (see n34; cf. 6:34; 15:1,18; 16:14) refers to his tendency to respond with ungovernable passions of resentment against a perceived offender, not by love (cf. 19:11), making his behavior irrational,” B. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (Eerdmans 2005), 113.

Let’s begin with reaction from the Boar’s Head Tavern—always a place fragrant with the edifying incense of sweet reason and charity. According to Alex Arnold, “Hayes is just an arrogant SOB.”

That could well be. But if his objection is that I was insufficiently charitable towards Ted Kennedy, then Arnold’s reaction seems an odd way to model the virtue he’s quick to urge on me. However, Arnold is a philosophy student, so intellectual consistency would be too much to expect from him.

Continuing:

“He seems to think that because God and some of the prophets inveighed against the wicked, that he, the mighty Steve Hayes, has that privilege too.”

You’d think that a student in a top-notch philosophy dept. could follow an argument. No.

Okay, let’s walk him through the argument once more. As I explicitly make clear in my original post, one of JMR’s arguments is that we should pray for Ted Kennedy due to our common humanity. And it was in this specific context that I drew attention to the fact that Scripture frequently distinguishes between the righteous and the wicked. So I’m pointing out that JMR’s argument from moral equivalence is contrary to Scripture. While all men are sinners, Scripture doesn’t, on that account, fail to draw a broad distinction between the righteous and the wicked.

In addition, JMR followed up this argument with another one which went far beyond the appeal to our common humanity. He said that we should prayer for Kennedy because we should honor his record of public service.

But that argument cuts both ways. What if his record of public service is dishonorable? What if Kennedy has used his public position to advance a monstrously evil agenda? Then, according to JMR’s own logic, that would be a reason not to pray for him.

This is why I introduced a sampling of verses (out of many available) to illustrate how the Bible distinguishes between the righteous and the wicked. My post was explicitly pegged to JMR’s post. The connections are there for any attentive reader to see.

“That he is somehow within his rights to let a man (a Kennedy all the same, and I have little love for the Kennedys) waste away without so much as a petition to Almighty God on his behalf.”

Let’s keep in mind that Almighty God is ultimately responsible for the fact that Kennedy has brain cancer in the first place.

“Besides, even if you reject my idea that Mr. Hayes is not in the position of God and the prophets, for every OT prooftext he raises in support of his dumb@$$, heartless bastard of an idea, I can point to the example of Jesus, Who prayed for His enemies even as they slew him. (My prooftext can beat up yours.) If our Lord could pray for His tormentors, surely we Christians can find the charity in our hearts to pray for Ted Kennedy.”

i) My prooftexts weren’t limited to OT prooftexts. Here’s a little tip for you, Arnold. The Book of Acts and the Book of Revelation belong to a division of the Bible known as the NT, not the OT.

ii) For those of us to honor the inspiration of Scripture, it will hardly to do play one prooftext off against another. Bible-believing Christians aren’t trying to game the system. Sound theological method includes the harmonistic method.

Maybe Arnold repudiates the inerrancy of Scripture. In that case, errant NT prooftexts are no better than errant OT prooftexts.

iii) I assume that Arnold’s alluding to Lk 23:34. Unfortunately, Arnold doesn’t care enough about the Bible to study the text of Scripture. The textual authenticity of Lk 23:34 is suspect—as he could discover by consulting some of the standard commentaries on Luke (e.g. Joseph Fitzmyer, C. F. Evans). Doesn’t Notre Dame have a decent library?

iv) His objection is incoherent. On the one hand, I shouldn’t assume the viewpoint of God and the prophets. On the other hand, I should assume the viewpoint of Christ.

v) Finally, I was commenting on JMR’s article, in which, among other things, he said: “Only a saint or a cad can fail to have sympathy for any sick man. The saint can do so because he is wise and deeply insightful enough to know when sympathy is not appropriate or helpful.”

Indeed, I commented on that statement in my original post. Why doesn’t Arnold regard JMR’s statement as equally outrageous?

“This kind of bullsh*t made it very easy for me to end whatever emotional attachment I had to modern-day Calvinism. I wanna punch something right now…”

I wonder if Arnold brings this same caliber of reasoning to the term papers he composes for Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen. Nice to see he’s putting his tuition to good use.

Then Adam Omelianchuk weighs in:

“That right there discredits the entire post from serious conversation. If you see TK on the same level as Hitler it is easy to wish for his destruction. Of course, such a supposition is absurd.”

Well, that says a lot about Omelianchuk’s scale of values—not to mention BHT. Kennedy is an influential proponent of abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research. Why isn’t that equivalent to Nazi ethics?

But maybe Omelianchuk is member of NARAL. Maybe he's a regular contributor to Planned Parenthood. Anything goes at BHT.

TommyMertonHead then weighs in:

“Really, there’s something serious at play here, and I truly want my Calvinist friends to help me out. This is a guy with probably more comprehension of Calvinistic theology than 99.9% of people on the planet. Lord knows I believe that the Bible says Let God judge the wicked, and I’m all for it.”

How did this suddenly turn into a debate over Calvinism? Did I say we have no duty to pray for Kennedy because that would run contrary to some Reformed essential or Reformed distinctive? No.

“But the command of Jesus is simple.”

Which command would that be? TommyMertonHead doesn’t cite or quote any dominical command to that effect. Does this refer back to Arnold’s apparent allusion to Lk 23:34? If so, does TommyMertonHead think that Jesus is *commanding* his Father to forgive his tormenters? Does Jesus order the Father around?

Even if we stipulate to the textual authenticity of this verse, it would be a *prayer* rather than a *command*.

Or does TommyMertonHead have something else in mind? If so, what?

“And the example of Jesus is compelling and the New Testament application of those words and example are plentiful.”

What example? Is this another allusion to Jesus on the cross? Well, that’s certainly one paradigmatic example. But that’s hardly the only one.

There’s also the paradigmatic example of Jesus as a warrior-king who vanquishes his enemies at the last judgment (e.g. 2 Thes 1:5-12; Rev 19:11-21).

For some reason, many Christians have a bad habit of forgetting that the Gospels naturally focus on the first advent of Christ. On his redemptive role. But even in the Gospels you can find a harbinger of his future judicial role (e.g. Mt 25).

“Please, my Calvinist friends, tell me how this is not evidence that a theological system can blind a person to the most simple and obvious applications of the words and example of Jesus?”

Actually, I’d say this is evidence of someone (TommyMertonHead) who is so blinded by his animus towards Calvinism that he has turned my original post into a debate over Calvinism, even though I never framed the issue in terms of Reformed theology.

Mind you, Reformed theology does have a bearing on the theology of prayer. I don’t mind pursuing those connections. But that wasn’t part of my argument vis-à-vis Kennedy.

“Does someone believe Jesus reads this post and says, ‘Yes, yes, yes. THAT’s where my heart is towards great sinners’.”

Since Jesus is the Judge of the living and the dead as well as the Redeemer of his people, I’d say that TommyMertonHead only has, at best, half a Jesus in his Christological cabinet.

Then Mark Nikirk weighs in:

“However, I have enough sense to see that when the author points out what ‘scripture says’ about evil doers, he never quotes Jesus….or the Gospels…So much for Jesus being the bible God. (sw)”

i) Like Alex Arnold, I see that Mark Nikirk also has a canon within the canon. Does everyone at BHT have his own customized canon of Scripture?

ii) I quoted from Acts and Revelation. But that doesn’t count since Nikirk’s canon is limited to the Gospels.

iii) Here’s a tip for you, Nikirk. You can also find words of Jesus in Acts and Revelation.

iv) Jesus didn’t write anything. He deputized other people to speak on his behalf after he returned to heaven (Mt 10:40; Lk 10:16). Jesus also had the annoying habit of quoting from the OT as if it were the word of God—which must be very inconvenient for Marcionites like Arnold and Nikirk.

“UPDATE: Looks like Alex and TMH both beat me to my thought….That if ‘Jesus had a Blog’ he probably would not have written that piece.”

I sure that if Jesus were a blogger, he could improve on my piece. For that matter, he could improve on BHT.

Then Bob Myers weighs in:

“It makes me want to throw up.”

As you can see, Myers was recruited for the usual intellectual virtues which distinguish the contributors to BHT.

“God does not wish for any to perish 2 Peter 3:9.”

Which he quotes out of context. As Bauckham points out in his standard commentary, “God’s patience with his own people, delaying the final judgment to give them the opportunity of repentance, provides at least a partial answer to the problem of eschatological delay…The author remains close to his Jewish source, for in Jewish thought it was usually for the sake of the repentance of his own people that God delayed judgment” (313).

So this is not a reference to humanity in general. To the contrary, it’s a reference to the covenant community.

“And our God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked Ezekiel 18:23 .”

There are several problems with this appeal:

i) This is not a reference to the “wicked” in general. Rather, it’s a reference to the exilic community. As one commentator points out, “These assertions of the sovereignty and especially the justice of God are not random theological statements drawn from a treatise on the attributes of God. Rather, they are specifically designed to meet and address temptations of those in exile,” I. Duguid, Ezekiel (235).

ii) The discussion is prefaced by a strong, programmatic affirmation of divine sovereignty. God is Lord over all (18:4). It won’t do to isolate 18:23 from this programmatic affirmation.

iii) Ezk 18:23 is talking about death, not damnation. Is Myers saying that we should pray to God to heal Kennedy? To spare him from death by cancer?

Does Myers think we have a general obligation to pray for anyone who is sick? Anyone who is facing a life-threatening illness? What if Hitler had been stricken with pneumonia during WWII? Would Myers pray for his healing?

An able-bodied Hitler would murder millions. Is Myers making the least attempt to be rational? Or does he equate piety with mock pious emoting?

Let’s take a Biblical example. God smote the Assyrian army with a deadly disease, thereby saving his people from their mortal enemy (2 Kgs 19:35). Would Myers pray for the healing of the army—so that Sennacherib could ravage Israel?

Kennedy is a man who has done a lot of harm to others in the course of his legislative career. Even if (for the sake of argument), I should pray for his soul, that hardly means I should pray for his healing.

For example, Kennedy is pushing embryonic stem cell research. If he recovers, he will continue to use his influence to lobby for embryonic stem cell research. Why does Myers think that I, as a Christian, am duty-bound to pray for the healing of a man who, if he recovers, will facilitate the murder of thousands or millions of embryonic human beings?

To take another example, Kennedy is also pushing for homosexual marriage. One consequence of homosexual marriage is that it would make it impossible to prevent homosexuals from adopting children. I don’t think children should be subjected to that sort of domestic arrangement. Children have a right to be raised by normal men and women.

Myers is so busy emoting all over the place that he disregards the welfare of the victim. I don’t share his callous disregard for innocent lives—just because that makes him feel more pious or virtuous.

iv) If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why do the wicked die? Is it Myer’s position that God can’t save Kennedy from brain cancer unless we pray for him?

Suppose that Kennedy dies of brain cancer? How would Myers apply Ezk 18:23 to that outcome? Was God able to save his life, but unwilling—or willing to save his life, but unable?

v) Ezk 18 is using rhetorical devices like rhetorical questions and hypothetical examples, as well as anthropopathetic exclamations, to make a point. Unless Myers is an open theist, he needs to make allowance for these literary and theological conventions. It’s not a choice between God taking literal pleasure or literal displeasure at the death of the wicked. “Pleasure” is a loaded word.

At the same time, there are also a number of judgment scenes in Scripture where God, as well as the saints, frankly relishes the spectacle of the wicked finally receiving their comeuppance. And if you think that’s a bit rhetorical, then you have to treat Ezk 18:23 the same way. It’s a simple matter to come with Bible passages depicting God as less than reluctant in meting out judgment:

“He who sits in the heavens laughs; _ the Lord holds them in derision. _5Then he will speak to them in his wrath, _ and terrify them in his fury” (Ps 2:4-5).

“27Behold, the name of the LORD comes from afar, _ burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; _his lips are full of fury, _ and his tongue is like a devouring fire; _28 his breath is like an overflowing stream_ that reaches up to the neck; _to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction, _ and to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads astray…30And the LORD will cause his majestic voice to be heard and the descending blow of his arm to be seen, in furious anger and a flame of devouring fire, with a cloudburst and storm and hailstones” (Is 30:27-30).
vi) More generally, Ezk 18 is opposing a collective karmic doctrine that had sprung up among the Babylonian exiles. To that it opposes the Biblical doctrine of repentance.

“I see it as a complete distortion, a Jonah like antipathy towards God’s boundary breaking mercy towards all... I regularly listen to his preaching, and you will not find any of this narrow constriction of God’s grace.”

In what sense is God merciful to all? What if Kennedy dies of brain cancer? Does this mean that God was merciless to Kennedy? What if Kennedy winds up in hell? Does this mean that God was merciless to Kennedy? Will Myers adjust his theology accordingly?

As a Calvinist, Myers must believe that God is able to save Kennedy from hell. If he doesn’t, he must have been unwilling to do so.

Does Myers bother to think before he opens his mouth? Or does he like to play to the galleries?

“I trace the entire blame for this Triabologue blogger’s mean spirited, void of compassion, dry-eyed vision of other’s suffering, to sin and our soul’s aversion to grace.”

And to what does he trace the mean-spirited rhetoric so often on display at BHT?

More to the point, the Bible isn’t equally compassionate to the victim and the victimizer. Myers’ concept of compassion resembles the sympathetic bishops who shuttled pedophile priests from one parish to another. Or like the compassion of bleeding-heart judges who release sexual predators back into the community while the judges and their own kids live behind the safety and security of gated communities. I don’t share Myer’s dry-eyed indifference to all the victims—past, present and future—who will suffer or die as a result of Kennedy’s legislative policies.

Strawfoot then weighs in:

“It almost seemed like he was advocating a weird civil disobedience against Kennedy by not praying for him.”

Yes, I think it should be a crime, don’t you?

“Echoes of, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper’?”

Does he even know where that comes from? Is it a divine command? No. It’s a statement by Cain. Who is Cain referring to? His biological brother. How is that relevant to Kennedy situation’s? Is he my biological brother? No. Is he my Christian brother? No. Did I murder him? No. Did I commit fratricide? No.

“Who is my neighbor’?”

Well, that depends on which character you think Kennedy would play in the parable of the good Samaritan. Would it be the robbers or the robbery victim? The Samaritan, or the priest and the Levite? Here’s one way to recontextualize the parable:

Dramatis Personae

The Robbers: Ted Kennedy

The Robbery victim: Terri Schiavo, Mary Jo Kopechne, an aborted baby, an embryonic human being, a boy in the custody of a homosexual “couple.”

The Priest/Levite: Boars Head Tavern

The Samaritan: A prosecutor or prolife politician

“We should pray for our leaders, period. This being whether we love ‘em or loathe ‘em for what they do.”

If this is a veiled allusion to 1 Tim 2:2, then I already addressed that passage in my original post. Did Strawfoot even bother to read it? Or is he commenting on other commenters, like an evolving oral tradition which loses any connection with the original.

“Of course, you can’t rightly pray for a person you don’t like.”

Did I say we don’t have a duty to pray for Kennedy unless we like him?” Was that part of my original argument? No.

“Intentionally withholding prayers for someone is weird and isn’t Christ-like.”

That’s a very intriguing claim. Does Strawfoot think that Christ prays for everyone? What does he pray for? That everyone be healed? That everyone be saved?

If Christ is praying for Ted Kennedy, why should I? Isn’t Jesus’ prayer more than sufficient?

What if Kennedy dies of brain cancer? Does this mean Jesus wasn’t praying for him? Or that God the Father doesn’t hear the prayers of his Son? Is the God the Father going to deny the prayer of his Son, but answer mine?

Does Strawfoot ever think through what he’s saying? Or does he just like to make swell, pious-sounding statements? Is pious nonsense so much better than sober-minded piety?

“While I probably would not think to pray for Sen. Kennedy on my own; if someone asked me to, I would be willing.”

So Strawfoot only has an obligation to pray for Kennedy of someone asks him to. Is that the point?

“We should pray that God would prepare our hearts to be ready and willing to pray for anyone at any time – with sincerity.”

I see. So if a serial killer broke into his home, held his family at gunpoint, and was about to bash in the skull of his five-year-old son until he suffered a suddenly heart-attack, Strawfoot would sincerely and immediately pray for the man’s recovery—since we should be ready and willing to pray for anyone at any time. It would be un-Christlike not to.

“God can do amazing things.”

That’s so true. In answer to Strawfoot’s prayer, God could instantly heal the serial killer so that he could pick up right where he left of and finish the job.

Matthew Johnson then weighs in:

“Here are my proof texts [Mt 5:43-45; Rom 12:14-21] for the morning… If a Christian can’t pray for his ‘enemies’ or even struggle with the difficulty of praying for one’s enemies, I’m not sure he knows the Jesus in Scripture.“

Well, that’s all very interesting:

i) Let’s apply the wording of his prooftexts to his own situation, since Matthew Johnson thinks he should pray for Ted Kennedy on the basis of these scriptures. Is Ted Kennedy persecuting Matthew Johnson? (Mt 5:44.) How is Ted Kennedy persecuting Matthew Johnson? How long has Ted Kennedy been persecuting Matthew Johnson?

ii) Does Johnson find it difficult to live peaceably with Kennedy? (Rom 12:18.) What’s the difficulty? Are they next-door-neighbors? Does Kennedy have a barking dog? Does he play loud music late at night?

Speaking for myself, I couldn’t afford to live anywhere near the Kennedy compound, so I have no difficulty living peaceably with him.

iii) When was the last time that Johnson saw Kennedy hungry or thirsty? (Rom 12:20a.) Kennedy doesn’t look very hungry to me. Frankly, he looks pretty well fed to me. Could afford to drop a few pounds. Knock off the candy bars.

iv) What’s the significance of Rom 12:19? Wouldn’t that justify the imprecatory Psalms? Does Johnson think that’s how we should pray for Kennedy? Pray that God will avenge his victims?

v) What’s the significance of Rom 12:20b? In OT imagery (“coals of fire”), this signifies divine judgment. On that application, we should be merciful here and now to aggravate Ted Kennedy’s guilt on the day of judgment. Does Johnson think that ought to be our motive?

vi) In the Sermon on the Mount, who is the “enemy”? Is it personal, political—or both?

In the Matthean version, some of the surrounding references are to the Roman forces of occupation. That would be political. “Those who persecute you” could either be personal or political.

On the other hand, there’s the “don’t love your own” motif. This is brought out more clearly in the Lucan parallel (esp. 6:32-35), which is set against a patronage system. Self-interest would be the natural motivation. I’ll do you a favor for a favor in return. This is personal. People you know. People who know you. People in a position to do you a good turn.

Shifting from benefactors to enemies, what would be the logical converse? It could take either, or both, of two different forms:

i) Don’t return evil for evil by doing evil to those who do evil to you.

ii) Don’t do good to your enemy in the expectation that he will reward you for your clemency.

In both instances, an enemy is someone who does us personal harm. And we are in a position to do them harm.

It could be a personal enemy. Someone who knows us. Someone who’s out to get us.

Or it could be a political enemy. Someone whose policies are hostile to our personal well-being. He doesn’t know us. He’s not targeting me in particular. Rather, it’s the class of individuals to which I belong.

How does this apply to Kennedy? It varies.

Kennedy is not my personal enemy. And he’s not, except in a very attenuated sense, my political enemy. Mind you, if Kennedy had his way, he would be my political enemy.

But he is an enemy to others, both at a personal and political level. As a powerful advocate of abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, and homosexual marriage, he’s an enemy to countless human beings.

In the Bible, we’re called upon to take sides. We’re to side with victims over victimizers.

Let’s go back to Johnson’s statement: “If a Christian can’t pray for his ‘enemies’ or even struggle with the difficulty of praying for one’s enemies, I’m not sure he knows the Jesus in Scripture.“

i) He didn’t bother to exegete his prooftexts. Don’t they teach exegesis at Asbury?

ii) He also misapplied his prooftexts. Indeed, if you fail in step one (i), you’ll fail in step two (ii).

But even before you reach for a commentary, it’s obvious that Kennedy isn’t persecuting Matthew Johnson. So the application is false on the face of it.

Back to Strawfoot:

“If anything, this is a glaring example of how too much brain-analysis and too little soul-searching can lead someone to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.”

Certainly no one will ever accuse Strawfoot of too much “brain-analysis.”

“It sounds like this fellow thinks he agrees with God about not praying for Kennedy, but I’m not too sure that God agrees with him. While I can’t possible know exactly what Jesus would say about this situation, I am 99.9% sure that it wouldn’t read like that.”

And how did he arrive at this percentile? He hasn’t offered any exegesis.

Then Ken B. weighs in:

“I am appalled. As I read it this passage came to mind:

‘The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican’ (Lk 18:11).”

To judge by the self-righteous tenor of Ken’s reaction, perhaps he should reconsider his easy appeal to that parable.

Let’s move along to another blog. Before we delve into the specifics, let’s review the stated policy of this blog. Among other things, it makes the following programmatic claims:

“…it is a sin of entitlement and gracelessness in becoming a self-appointed, hypercritical gatewarden to the kingdom of God. In light of this, the first two primary differences between what we seek to be and those who we sometimes criticize are thus…[1]When we see Christians being maliciously gossiped about, we seek to follow John’s example by calling attention to it and correcting the error, in defense of the wronged brother or sister and in hopes that the one doing the gossiping will repent…[2]When we see Christians being ‘put out of the church’ (literally or figuratively) for reasons apart from unrepentant living in sin or complete departure from the gospel of Jesus, we again seek to defend the wronged brother or sister, particularly if his ‘sin’ is a matter of secondary (or tertiary) importance - often matters of conscience or preference.”

http://christianresearchnetwork.info/how-we-seek-to-be-different/

Thus, the only reason CRN would do a hostile reaction piece on my post, consistent with its stated policy, is if I was either “gossiping” about Kennedy or trying to put Kennedy out of the church—on the assumption that Kennedy is a Christian, and Tim Reed is defending his “wronged brother” (=Ted Kennedy), whose “sin” is a matter of secondary or tertiary importance.

Somehow it doesn’t seem to me that Tim’s post is consistent with CRN’s editorial policy.

Oh, and one more thing…here’s their policy on commenters:

• refrain from using terms of condescension
• respond to arrogance and anger with a gentle answer
• not escalate the level of rhetoric or anger
• defend your argument, not yourself
• remember that in pursuing the purity of the wisdom that comes from above: “ do so in a peaceable manner.”

See for yourself if they do any better at enforcing this policy.

merry Says:

“Basically their reasoning is that there are so many people in the world we could be praying for besides Ted Kennedy. Yes, there are a lot of people in the world to pray for. When you look at it that way, why even bother to pray? We’re only able to pray for a few people, so why bother?”

i) No, that wasn’t “basically” our reasoning. JMR gave several reasons for his position, so I gave several reasons to the contrary.

ii) I conceded JMR’s point that we are especially accountable for some people in particular. Where I differed with him was over who in particular. So merry’s all-or-nothing approach doesn’t follow from what I said.

iii) I see that logic isn’t merry’s strong suit. To say you shouldn’t pray for anyone unless you should pray for everyone is a complete non sequitur. My point is that our prayers are bound to be severely selective. If Kennedy makes the cut, someone else is left out. Why does he make the cut at someone else’s expense?

“As far as ‘honoring’ Ted Kennedy by praying for him goes, Jesus ‘honored’ a lot of people. He ‘honored’ sinners and tax collectors (there’s a bad joke in here, but I won’t bother!). I think it was called humility.”

Once again, logic isn’t merry’s strong suit. JMR argued that we should pray for Kennedy because we should honor him for his honorable record of public service. If merry tries to mount an argument from analogy, then this would mean that Jesus is honoring the world’s oldest profession, &c. Given what Jesus says about fornication, I don’t think so.

“Let’s look at this from the other side. If they won’t pray for Ted Kennedy, then there’s a whole lot of people in this world that they are to good to pray for.”

A straw man argument. I never said that Christians are too good to pray for Kennedy.

“Trust me, there are worse people than Ted Kennedy.”

Terri Schiavo couldn’t be reached for comment. Mary Jo Kopechne couldn’t be reached for comment. Millions of aborted babies couldn’t be reached for comment.

Not, I don’t take your word for it.

“On second thought, is anyone really a whole lot better than him?”

I can think of lots of folks.

Break The Terror Says:

“Especially since the writer’s life has inevitably been influenced in some way for the better by legislation Ted Kennedy fought for.”

Among other things, abortion has bankrupted social security. Too few workers to support too many retirees.

“Michael Savage probably told you not to, since he’s been the one leading the charge on this issue.”

Has he? I wouldn’t know. I don’t listen to his radio show.

“And we should all obey the words of hack radio personalities whose real last names are ‘weiner,’ and who happen to be former beatniks. What a moron. (Michael Savage-Weiner and the writer.)”

How would you know so much about a hack radio personality unless you were a regular listener? Who’s the moron now?

Rick Frueh Says:

“If Ted Kennedy had been a champion for ‘conservative’ causes they would have held an all night prayer vigil.”

Can’t say I ever held an all-night vigil for an ailing conservative leader.

“Like Tim grasped for words about Spurgeon’s views, I cannot come up with a word or phrase that adequately describes the smug hubris that comes with some theologies.”

That’s because you don’t have a rational position. All you have are inarticulate feelings.

“I can honestly say it sometimes makes me physically sick.”

See what I mean? That’s soooo intelligent!

“Ted Kennedy is a sinner for whom Jesus died.”

Maybe so, maybe no.

“We should pray for his salvation.”

Maybe so, maybe not. There are 6.6 billion sinners in the world. Do we only pray for the celebrities?

“The breathtaking theoloigical ignorance in all of this is that all of us were ever bit the sinner as is Ted Kennedy, and the only reason God accepts us now is certainly not because we do not sin, it is because of Jesus Himself and His grace.”

Does God accept Ted Kennedy? What about some evidence of saving faith? Like repentance? Sanctity?

“I will always believe God hates politics and political causes because it poisons are spirit by dragging us down into the repulsive pit of partisan Christianity.”

You have sin with or without politics.

“Let us pray for Kennedy just like we pray for our own relatives.”

But Kennedy is not my relative. If I’m to pray for him, it must be for some other reason.

“God is no respector of persons.”

i) That rips the passage out of context. Acts 10:34 is dealing with God’s relation to man, not man’s relation to his fellow man. We do, in fact, have a higher duty to care for relatives than strangers (2 Tim 5:8).

ii) It goes back to Deut 10:17, where it has a judicial context. God is a just judge because he’s impartial and incorruptible.

If you apply Acts 10:34 to Kennedy, then we should pray that God exact retribution on Kennedy.

“The insidious lie of limited atonement and unconditional election are embedded in this kind of ivory tower self righteousness.”

Did I say we shouldn’t pray for Kennedy because God didn’t elect him and Christ didn’t redeem him? No. That was no part of my argument.

I happen to think that Kennedy gives every evidence of being reprobate, but that was not the basis of my argument.

iggy then quotes from Lk 6:27-28.

Does Kennedy hate iggy? Does Kennedy curse iggy? Is Kennedy mistreating iggy?

What isn’t about people who quote verses which are so clearly inapplicable to the issue at hand?

He also quotes Mt 6:14-15.

Did Kennedy sin against iggy? How did Kennedy sin against iggy?

He also quotes Mk 11:24-25. However, the synoptic parallel in Matthew (5:23-24) has reference to forgiveness within the Christian community.

“Believe me for someone to say not to pray for Sen Kennedy, they are not getting that from the Bible… or God… and especially not Jesus.”

Except that iggy quoted all three passages out of context. And the question at issue is whether we have *duty* to pray for him. That’s different that “for someone to say not to pray for Sen Kennedy.”

There’s a difference between what’s prescribed, what’s proscribed, and what’s permitted.

Rick Frueh Says

“This also reminds me of the outrage and castigation some church received at the hands of the reformers when they dared started a campaign to pray fro Britney Spears. Does it strike anyone that on the reformed side Miley Cyrus is absolutely slaughtered and on the free will side Spears is prayed for. OK, class, this test will count. Which reflects Christ?”

A lovely specimen of a red herring. Class dismissed!

JohnD Says

“I have no problem praying for Ted. God help me, I am disinclined to pray for the author of this piece of . . .”

Although he’s more explicit than most, the running irony in most of these comments, both here and over at the BHT, is that our critics only love those they approve of. They quote the Sermon on the Mount. They talk about turning the other cheek, but do they do it? Not on your life!

Why don’t they take the opportunity to model their faux-Amish theology? Why don’t they adorn their replies with rhetorical garlands of love and kindness?

They say I should pray for Kennedy because he’s my enemy, and I should love my enemy. Because I don’t, they treat me as their enemy. Okay, so shouldn’t they bless me? Shouldn’t they direct some loving rhetoric my way?

They’re just like everyone else. They have their loves and hates. And it shows.

pastorboy Says:

“Kennedy is one thing if nothing else and that is a flawed man, and a great public servant who has given his long life over to serving the public. Whether I agree with him or not, I must pray for Him.”

Here the obligation to pray seems to be predicated on the fact that Kennedy is a “great public servant.”

But that rationale cuts both ways. What if we think that Kennedy has used his long life in public office to undermine all that’s good and decent? Then what? Should we still pray for him? Refrain from prayer? Pray one of the imprecatory Psalms?

Break The Terror Says:

“It is also self-satisfied hubris to suggest that, behind one’s computer in fundamentalism land, one can accurately determine the state of Ted Kennedy’s soul or his religious faith.”

Christians are called upon to be fruit-inspectors (Mt 5:15-20). I’d add that if you mouse over to Break The Terror’s blog (an exercise I wouldn’t recommend), it only takes a few moments to find out that’s he’s a full-blown hate-monger. No a cheek-turning Anabaptist.

“The legislation he has tirelessly fought for is more in line with Jesus’s message than anything that’s come out of the Conservative Christian church in decades.”

And what is Jesus’ message? Let’s kill babies! Millions of babies!

iggy Says:

“In fact more amazing is how the author flounders in his attempt to say, ‘it is all fine and good, but it is wrong’… it can’t be both as the author is asserting. He is a bit double minded in all this.”

Of course, that bears no resemblance to what I actually said.

BTW, the only commenter who knows what’s going on is Daniel Chew. Bookmark his blog for future reference:

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/

Moving along (Bruce Gerencser):

“For all of his posturing, it seems to me, that Hays doesn’t pray for those he morally or politically opposes, and that is the bottom line.”

http://www.worldofbruce.net/2008/05/27/praying-for-ted-kennedy/

No, that’s not the bottom-line. Another blogger who can’t follow the bouncing ball. This is how it goes, Bruce. JMR presents an argument, then I present a counterargument. I’m answering JMR on his own grounds. This is not a difficult procedure to grasp.

“Is Senator Kennedy worthy of our prayers? Certainly. As much as any member of Adam’s fallen race is worthy of our prayers.”

If you’re a member of Adam’s *fallen* race, then, by definition, you’re *unworthy* of our prayers—and we’re unworthy of yours. Sinners are unworthy. That’s a defining feature of sin. Unworthiness rather than worthiness is a typical condition of prayer.

“Someday, Steve Hays will be in need of the prayers of others. Hopefully, he will not be judged worthy or unworthy based on his morality, doctrine, ethics, or religious affiliation.”

Which is a complete straw man argument in relation to my original post, which was tracking the arguments of JMR.

Gerencser then quotes 1 Tim 2:1-3. Of course, I explicitly dealt with that passage in my original post.

Turning to the combox of my own blog:

BREAKTHETERROR SAID:

“With Christians such as the writer around, who needs Satanists?”

I don’t think that putting the Old Horny or his minions out of work would be such a bad idea, myself. Thanks for the encouragement.

“(Oh, and didn't you hear? The autopsy came back over a year ago. The doctors were right about Terri Schiavo all along.”

Wrong again:

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2005/09/unconscious-may-be-able-to-hear.html

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAxMDkxMzc5YmZhY2Y2OGQxMjkyZTI0OTY1NjJhNjc=

“The commenter challenges the writer to read one alternative news source per month.”

I alternate between the Weekly Standard and the National Review. How’s that for ideological diversity!

S.J. WALKER SAID:

“It means this gentlemen: I must not stand at judgment and tell my Lord I did not pray for Kennedy because someone told me we were not morally comparable. I mean look at him Lord! He's disgusting! He was not worthy of my prayers."

You’re demagoguing the issue. I was responding to JMR’s contention that we should pray for Kennedy based on our “common humanity”—not to mention is follow-up argument that we should pray for Kennedy to “honor” his years of public service.

“There is a single word definition of me based on that scenario: murderer.”

I didn’t give Kennedy brain cancer. If he dies of terminal brain cancer, God struck him dead, not me. Is God a murderer?

“But lets not forget the Sovereign part of Grace.”

I have a better idea: let’s not forget what I actually wrote—instead of your malicious caricature.

“Now you say, ‘that's not what I meant!' Rubbish.”

Not only is this not what I meant, it’s also not what I wrote.

“Oh? Is your little God not great enough to hear your prayers for all? Are you given a ration of prayers and must use them sparingly? What stops you from praying for Kennedy specifically and billions generally? Will God not know His sheep regardless?”

Once again, you’re demagoguing the issue. There are many people I can pray for specifically. Too many.

But I’m also not much into omnibus prayers. “God, save all the Chinese!” “God, feed all the starving children!” God, heal all the amputees!”

I know in advance that God isn’t going to answer an omnibus prayer, so an omnibus prayer is insincere. Why would I pray a prayer that I know God has no intention of answering? That makes a mockery of prayer.

“But He is not glorified by me saying ‘no, I don't have to pray for that wretch if I don't want to’.”

This is another malicious misrepresentation of what I actually wrote. The issue at hand was whether we have an *obligation* to pray for Ted Kennedy. Not whether we *want* to.

“Oh, but he was old, he was on his way out.”

The comparison is demonstrably false on several grounds:

i) In what connection did I say that Kennedy was on his way out? That was in response to one of JMR’s arguments—with special reference to 1 Tim 2:2. The situation with Newton is not comparable. He is not a political leader. And the Pauline rationale is not the same.

ii) In addition, I believe that Newton was saved at about the age of 22, and lived to be 82. He wasn’t old at the time he was saved, and he wasn’t on the way out. Kennedy is a 76-year-old unbeliever.

You’re not attempting to be honest, either in your treatment of my argument, or in your choice of counterexamples.

“We are called to pray for enemies, and I think we would all agree that as yet, there is nothing to indicate Kennedy is anything but the enemy.”

Whose enemies? Enemies to whom?

“Steve's comment about Luke 6 not applying here is frankly wrong.”

That’s an assertion, not an argument.

“We don't get out of showing compassion on a loop hole.”

What you presume to call a “loophole,” I call exegesis. You’re acting like a false prophet. You are attributing to God various things he never said or meant.

This isn’t trivial. This is signing God’s name to your own words. Substituting your words for his. Substituting what you mean for what he meant.

“But to not pray at all, to even be moderately or outright opposed to it is the heighth of arrogance and disingenuous humility.”

That’s another intemperate assertion bereft of exegetical support.

“I understand the hesitance and resistance to the claim that we are obligated to pray for everyone without exception.”

Peter has already disproven this overstatement.

“But aside from the fact of Kennedy's vile nature--which all have apart from Christ and would do as much or more evil than Kennedy himself if they could--I did not see any evidence to support the notion that he is one for whom prayers are not to be given. Vileness and depravity are not in and of themselves reason--or excuse--to claim that one might be unworthy or ‘undestined’ for prayer and supplication.”

You’re just yelling and screaming into the wind as you continue to impute to Peter and me a position we didn’t take, then wax indignant at your own imaginary imputation.

“Sorry, I must be venting my spleen again.”

Indeed you are!

“The only problem is that this statement is followed by a roundabout excuse that there are only so many hours in day, we can't pray for everybody. So even then, there are problems with the presumption.”

Naturally, since the statement of the publican is not even a divine command, or a divine command to pray for anyone, much less a divine command to pray for everyone. So while every Christian can, and ought to, identify with the publican, his exclamation is hardly sufficient warrant to say that we have a standing duty to pray for Ted Kennedy.

“The main argument brought forth in the post around which the air of complete reluctance to show mercy flowed, was the stressed fact of Kennedy's undeniable depravity in person and practice.”

No, that was not the “main” argument. That grossly oversimplifies the post. There was no *main* argument. JMR had several arguments for his position, and so I responded in kind. My counterarguments paralleled his.

“If we differ to the probability of others behaving correctly, thus covering for us while we focus on those who mean more to us, we wind up right back at only loving those who love us just like the sinners in Matthew 5:43-48 and Luke 6:27-36.”

There are 6.6 billion people in the world. Does Walker love them equally? No. He’s extremely selective.

This doesn’t mean we can’t be charitable to anyone outside our circle of family and friends. We should be. But our charity must still be extremely selective.

“This is definitely true, but the initial implication and the further assertion was that with only so many hours in day, ones like Kennedy should be put on the back burner so to speak in place of ones we know better, or perhaps harbor more care towards.”

And what’s wrong with that implication? I’ve come to know a lot of people in my 48 years on earth—pushing 49. I don’t have time to earnestly pray for all of them. And those are the folks I personally know. That’s not counting all of my contemporaries I happen to know about—the celebrities.

“But Romans is clear that all governing authorities are to be respected and obeyed as far as fits the glory of the Lord.”

i) We have popular sovereignty in America. Elected officials are public servants. They serve at the pleasure of the electorate. Kennedy is not my elected representative.

ii) There’s an implicit condition in Rom 13. The civil magistrate is a minister of justice. What happens if he becomes a minister of injustice?

Under the OT, he could be deposed. In fact, that was known to happen.

iii) You’re not going to find a duty to pray for Kennedy’s salvation or recovery in Rom 13. That’s not exegesis by any stretch of the imagination.

iv) And if you want to take it in that direction, then how many of our government officials do you pray for? I’ll arbitrarily confine myself to some of the top officials of the top agencies or primary branches of government:

President (1)
Veep (1)
Cabinet (15)
FBI (1)
CIA (1)
NSA (1)
Joint Chiefs (4)
CENTCOM (5)
NORAD (1)
FBI
Congress (535)
Governors (50)
Mayors (259) [of American cities of 100,000]
Supreme Court (9)

Keep in mind that the total number of federal employees is over 3.6 million (or so I’ve read). And we all know that Walker disapproves of finding “loopholes” when showing compassion. So I assume that Walker prays for about 10,000 federal employees a day. Of course, we need to thrown in all the state and local officials while we’re at it. We mustn’t discriminate.

“To tell me that if I pray for God’s will to be done with Kennedy will detract from my prayer for my high school classmates is preposterous.”

How many of your high school classmates do you pray for on a regular basis?

It’s possible that Walker has a very perfunctory notion of prayer. Just going down a checklist. If you’ve studied auctioneering, you could get through the list pretty quick.

“Instead of even a modicum of reflection upon the possibility that an article was written poorly and argued carelessly.”

I went through JMR’s arguments one-by-one. I also exegeted the prooftext that he merely alluded to, and discussed its relevance, or lack thereof. I’d say that’s a pretty careful way of arguing for my position. A blow-by-blow treatment. Far more careful that Walker’s treatment, in which he either disregards or misrepresents what I actually said.

“The first resort is insulting and destructive comments aimed at making your won brothers appear as weaklings.”

I think the tone of Peter’s comments—both initially and subsequently—has been quite appropriate and far more restrained than Walker’s. And I’m in complete agreement with the content of Peter’s comments—which supplements my original argument in important respects.