If we believe God’s will is not involved in ordinances, i.e., some inscrutable natural law requires baptism for salvation, we’re claiming a belief in a transubstation of sorts. Not only is the relationship between cause and effect utterly obscure to us, we can’t even observe any specific effect. So the process itself is utterly beyond investigation.

Okay. Maybe. I’m baptized and I’m somehow quite literally changed in a way rendering me fit for salvation in accordance with my worthiness.

But how does this apply to ordinances by proxy? When I’m baptized I’ve physically undergone an act, so it’s possible to see how a literal change could have occurred. But the only thing connecting the event to the dead is the individual’s name, and a name is not an inherent feature of a person (I ought to know, having legally changed my own). So how on earth could this possibly be effective?

If, on the other hand, God’s will IS involved, i.e., God knows which individual I mean and CHOOSES to save him/her when I jump through the hoop, God is starting to look terribly capricious. In the words of Hellmut Lotz, he’s holding us to “formalities like a Prussian bureacrat.” (#26)

This is why I think we have to choose between believing that God is capricious and/or incompetent, or believing that ordinances are unnecessary. Like Hellmut, I think proxy ordinances are really for the living.

Ronan, apparently the New Apostolic Church baptizes by proxy. Once a year one their apostles is baptized for everyone who died last year.

At least that is what my Lutheran religion instructor taught us.

As to the necessity of perfectly done ordinances, well, words have power. By that I don’t just mean the meaning of the word; I also mean the sound of the speaker’s voice. Someone can be as sincere as the sun is bright but if they fumble, mutter, and trail off that sincerity isn’t going to come through. In effect you have to convince those listening — humans, spiritual beings, the universe — of the strength of your conviction. Someone who stutters may still do so because of the effort they put into their words. Someone who “ums,” “ahs,” and misplaces words (or whole sentences) can’t.

In answer to the problem of God’s volition, I guess I’m inclined to see God as subject to some ethical standard. If God is completely capricious and completely arbitrary, neither rituals nor righteous behavior nor anything else is going to guarantee anything. God will just do whatever he wants in the moment. So this is a second possible theological move to solve the problem: God behaves unpredictably. Again, it works perfectly well, but only to the degree we’re willing to let go of the idea that God is good or just.

The third possible theological move I see you hinting at is to suggest that ritual is meaningful to the degree we invest it with meaning (hence the symbolism). I can understand how this explains the value of ordinances, but not their necessity. I absolutely believe in the value of ordinances. As Jack said (57), they create a discrete moment in time at which the nature of our relationship to God is formalized. But value does not equal necessity.

I’m attracted to the first possibility, and willing to suspend my disbelief and accept that I cannot understand the mechanics of ordinances but they are nevertheless effective. But I have reservations: chiefly, I would like to think the workings of the natural world are not entirely opaque to us.

I’m also attracted to the second possibility, because it solves a number of theological problems. But I cannot respect a God who is not good or just. And if God is good, I maintain that, not necessarily in this life, but in the eternal scheme his behavior must be somewhat predictable. (There’s a range of acceptable behaviors.) The reason I’m claiming God’s volition is not involved is that I want to believe there is some standard apart from God whereby our worthiness is determined, and it is this standard, and not God, which determines the efficacy of the ordinances. So if a child molester receives the necessary ordinances, the reason the individual is not saved involves this standard–let’s call it “justice”–and not God’s whim.

So we’re in agreement that ordinances can have enormous value to the individual. But if 1 and 2 (above) make us uncomfortable, we’re still stuck with a theological conundrum. If God is good, by definition he follows some ethical standard. An ordinance is ethically neutral. To the degree that God requires it universally, he’s deviated from that ethical standard.

(Kiskilili is Akkadian for the Sumerian KI.SIKIL.LIL2.LA, a “female demon.” I think it’s only attested in the genitive, but presumably was Kiskililu in the nominative. It’s a little complicated to spell, though, so I’m thinking of changing my screen name to Kiriel.)

(And as for speaking without vowels, I’m thinking of “speaking”; by judiciously arranging stops and fricatives and practicing a bit, this is quite possible! Unfortunately it tends to involve a lot of spitting . . .)