Worship is an experience wherein God calls together God's people and God's people respond. God's people open themselves to God, and God, in complete freedom and love, responds. The worship experience is therefore a time in which we are receptive to a sovereign and loving God to whom we direct our prayers and in whom our faith rests. So worship is an experience like no other in that we as a community commune with the divine. But it is also a teaching moment like no other. In worship God reveals God's self. We learn of God because of God's self revelation. In turn, worship is affected by the new revelation. The worship experience is altered to fit that new information about God. This alteration can come in an actual change in the format and delivery of the worship or it can be a change in the individual's perception of what the worship means. Thus, worship includes symbols that point to a deeper meaning about the reality of God and the worship will conform to God's self expressions.
What does this all mean? The topic of today's post revolves around LDS forms of worship. The word ‘worship’ is not common in LDS lingo, but I believe that the highest form of service and veneration to the Lord is performed in the Temple. Specifically I would like to address a personal question concerning the theological justification for vicarious baptism. As I explained above, worship tells us something of God, and as God reveals himself, worship will adjust so that it communicates more fully the revealed truth of God. Therefore, the fundamental question for this post is: What does vicarious baptism say about God?
I believe in a just God. Worship has taught me that. And what I mean by 'just' is that I believe in a God that will one day judge the lives of each individual in a fair manner. By 'fair' I mean God will not impose a requirement on the life of a human being for which that human being had no means to fulfill during their lifetime. For example, God would be unjust to require someone to know of and have gained a deep relationship with Jesus Christ during their lifetime if that person had no access to Jesus or His teachings. God would be unjust to judge that person as a disciple of Christ if that person had no opportunity to learn what 'disciple of Christ' meant to even the most elementary degree. I believe God will judge each person in their life context and God will be just in judging.
Now imagine a man named Eli who happens to live his life in the 4th century CE. Eli yearns to have a deeper relationship with his Creator, learns of Christianity, has a genuine spiritual experience to confirm that he should become a disciple of Christ, and thus seeks after the most available source of enacting that desire. For him, in his context, the available source is the church which is emerging as the Catholic church. He is baptized by a Catholic priest, who is devoted to his station but occasionally drinks too much of the communion wine. That doesn't stop Eli from feeling the Spirit of God confirm his baptism, and he lives a life dictated by the confession, ‘Jesus is Lord.'
When Eli dies, he meets his Maker. Can you imagine? You have led a life following Christ as best you can and according to what was available to you in your context. You are now before your Creator. God, who knows the context of Eli's life better than Eli himself, will make a just judgment.
So here is my question: What would a just God do? Would God look on the devotion of this man, see how the atoning sacrifice of Christ has purified him of all sin and unrighteousness, and say, "enter, thou good and faithful servant"? Or, Would Eli be denied access to God's kingdom unless he received a baptism that was unavailable to him during his lifetime?
It might be said that Eli was baptized by an unworthy priest and therefore his baptism, although done with good intentions, is invalid in the sight of God. What does such a claim say about God? Isn't this more of a judgment on the one who performed the baptism and not on the one who was baptized? Eli sought after the appropriate manner to embrace Christianity in his context. He can't help it if his priest liked to drink too much and was therefore considered unworthy by God. How would Eli know that God had removed the priest's authority to perform baptism? Most importantly, why would God the Father discredit a man's genuine effort to follow Christ over the sins of a completely different person?
What does that say about God?
God is not weak. God conquers sin. In fact, that is the good news of this thing we call the Gospel: that God has overcome death and sin through Christ. God sends Jesus Christ who dies on a cross for the sins of all humanity and overcomes death through resurrection. God then empowers the remaining apostles and disciples to go as lights in the world. The world, who has already crucified God's Son, rejects the apostles (which really should be no surprise). At this point we must ask ourselves, does God endure with God's people after the apostles are all gone? These are people who are still searching, pondering and praying to God; these are people being killed, even slaughtered because they profess Jesus is Lord; these are people waiting anxiously for the Coming of Christ; these are people that believe whole heartedly that not even the gates of hell can stop the kingdom of God (Matt. 16:18). Does God take away his authority to perform legitimate baptisms for these people simply because the rest of the world is rejecting the Gospel (once again, rejection really shouldn't be that surprising, especially for a God who knows everything)?
What does that say about God?
Of course, persecution is an outside pressure. Let us hold to the idea that by the 4th century the Catholic Church in its entirety was so corrupt that the authority to perform baptisms was removed by God from the entire Church, even world (since only God could remove God's authority to do something). Is it just for God to judge Eli unworthy to enter the kingdom of God because of an inaccessible authority which is controlled by the very God making the judgment? In other words, what are we saying about a God that deems souls unworthy to be with God for eternity because they were not baptized by someone with the very authority that God controls? Does God reject one's baptism because of the internal corruption within a Church? Salvation, according to the Bible, is a free gift (Eph. 2:8-10). If we go back to Eli, here is a man who is functioning as best he can in his context. The only thing available to him is the Catholic Church, and therefore he seeks out what seems to him to be the correct institution in which to devote one's life to Christ. He is baptized by water sprinkled on his head. This is the only form of baptism Eli knows and he doesn't think twice about it. He feels God's confirmation and lives a life devoted to Christ. Does God reject Eli's baptism because the only institution available to him in which to be baptized was corrupt (keeping in mind that Eli doesn't know that according to God the Catholic Church is corrupt)?
What does that say about God?
If we declare that indeed God rejects Eli's baptism, than what was the whole point of God's Holy Spirit touching his life? The Spirit of God will testify of truth, so why did it send Eli to a corrupt church? Why did it confirm in Eli's heart that what he was doing was right, if in fact, it was not? It seems sadistic for God to send his Holy Spirit to direct humanity to truth, but when they adhere to the Holy Spirit in their given context, genuinely seeking after truth as you and I do, God deems them unworthy to enter His presence because they were sent by the Holy Spirit to a church that performs a baptism God rejects. That's kinda scary to me.
Would God really remove his authority to perform legitimate baptisms because of external persecution and internal corruption? I know of a story that may illustrate my perspective. God comes to Abraham to let him know that Sodom and Gomorrah are on the chopping block. Abraham asks God, "Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" God declares that if there are fifty righteous, He will forgive the whole place. This conversation continues, each time Abraham reducing the number of hypothetical righteous people in the city to see what God will do (50? 45? 40? 30? 20? 10?). Each time God states that he will not destroy the city if He finds within it any number of righteous. Lucky for Lot, the angels of God direct him and his family out of the city before it is destroyed. It seems that besides Lot and his family, no one else was worth saving (Gen. 18-19; Note: Lot and family are saved because they are considered righteous by God even though Lot is willing to give his daughters to the mob that wants to get to 'know' the angels of God and even though after the ordeal these daughters get to 'know' their own father. Interesting difference in understanding of 'righteous' than what we would consider today).
To summarize, I really have a hard time believing that God - the same God who calls us to be long-suffering, if not even more (1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22-23) - would not be long-suffering with all of his children on earth (Psalm 86, one of my favorites. Exodus 34:6-7, also awesome). It is so easy for us to think of history in a neat summary: They killed Jesus and the apostles, corruption ensued and so God took away his authority. But there were thousands of people, devout followers of Christ that saw the apostles die and probably cried out even more for God's direction and mercy and authority. Is God going to remove the authority for these people to access their Savior because of the wickedness of others? God is so much more powerful than our feeble attempts at destroying his work, and his mercy is something needed every day, not simply in the afterlife. Eli of the 4th century needed it just as much as you and I (remember, Christians actually died for their faith back then and it was not pretty). Here I am faced with the perplexing question of, do I continue to extract names from the Catholic baptismal records so that another baptism can be performed on their behalf in the Temple? A baptism that they accepted already in their lifetime within their context? A baptism they value as much as I value mine? Do I continue to pray and in asking God for wisdom "remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things [the Book of Mormon]", but believe that God took away the ability for close to 2,000 years worth of people to legitimately take on Christ (Moroni 10:3)? I don't see how that is mercy.
What if I accept that God will judge them in their context, appreciate the life they lived with what they had, cleanse them of all unrighteousness through the Atonement of Christ and let them enter in His abode? For myself, I can't ask for anymore.
