Baptism on Behalf of the Dead?

Originally posted by vistesd
You wouldn’t hide Jews in your attic, and lie to the Nazis who knocked on your door? You wouldn’t help a runaway slave if it meant you’d have to lie about their whereabouts? Or would you say, “Look I’ll hide you as long as no one asks, but then I’ll have to give you up for the sake of honesty”?

Helping people in such situations and lying about it aren't hopelessly intertwined. One can refuse to answer. One can also be honest about what one is willing or not willing to do.

The truth will make you free.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Helping people in such situations and lying about it aren't hopelessly intertwined. One can refuse to answer. One can also be honest about what one is willing or not willing to do.

The truth will make you free.

And if simple refusal to answer is read (as it likely would be, I think) as an indication that the culprits are, in fact, hiding out at your place? (Silence can speak volumes, as they say.) And so they are taken out and tortured, killed? EDIT: Or the person on their death-bed now dies panic-stricken? etc., etc.

Note that the point here is not what you suffer from telling the truth, but what someone else suffers. In the examples that I've pointed out, I think your desire to keep your pristine honesty, and your freedom of conscience therefrom, shows callous disregard for the other. Not just a mistake in judgment, but a priori disregard.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Helping people in such situations and lying about it aren't hopelessly intertwined. One can refuse to answer. One can also be honest about what one is willing or not willing to do.

The truth will make you free.

So, in your case, you would simply refuse to help Jews who need a place to hide because you
would be unwilling to lie to the Nazi's who would indubitably murder those Jews?

This is your Christ-centered answer?

Nemesio

Originally posted by vistesd
And if simple refusal to answer is read (as it likely would be, I think) as an indication that the culprits are, in fact, hiding out at your place? (Silence can speak volumes, as they say.) And so they are taken out and tortured, killed? EDIT: Or the person on their death-bed now dies panic-stricken? etc., etc.

Note that the point here is not what you ...[text shortened]... allous disregard for the other. Not just a mistake in judgment, but a priori disregard.

Seems likely that I'd be taken out and tortured/killed as well. So be it. I'd take that risk.

Why would I leave a person in their death-bed panic-stricken? Death need not be feared. I'd spend as much time as necessary to help them understand that. The one person I knew who died from a terminal disease seemed to take comfort from our discussions on life /death. I don't remember for sure, but I think I was one of the few if not only person who was willing to discuss these things with her. When she got to a point where she was really suffering and wanted to die but couldn't, she had her family call me to 'help her'. I spoke to her and later made a suggestion to her sister. I can only hope it helped her to 'let go'. She passed a couple of days later.

Why is it necessarily about 'freedom of conscience'? Not everyone operates from the viewpoint of the self.

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, in your case, you would simply refuse to help Jews who need a place to hide because you
would be unwilling to lie to the Nazi's who would indubitably murder those Jews?

This is your Christ-centered answer?

Nemesio

That's a curious assumption to make.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems likely that I'd be taken out and tortured/killed as well. So be it. I'd take that risk.

Why would I leave a person in their death-bed panic-stricken? Death need not be feared. I'd spend as much time as necessary to help them understand that. The one person I knew who died from a terminal disease seemed to take comfort from our discussions on li about 'freedom of conscience'? Not everyone operates from the viewpoint of the self.

In the case of your scenario with the person suffering from a terminal disease, I have no quarrel—as a specific-case decision. I’m sure you were a help to her; just as I hope I was with my father. When telling the truth is not cruel, and/or silence is an option free from adverse interpretation by the other, I have no quarrel with you at all. EDIT: I note that you clearly had time to communicate with her at some length.

My point is that by making an a priori decision to not lie under any circumstances, no matter what that implies as a cost to someone else!, you are showing a priori disregard to the needs of the other—a priori because they do not factor into your decision. I cannot do that.

You said, “The truth will make you free.” I inferred “freedom of conscience”—or at least some kind of freedom for yourself—given that, again, consideration of the other does not enter into the calculus for you when it comes to telling the truth versus lying.

Again, what you suffer from your adherence to a strict rule of honesty is not the (or at least my) moral point here; it is the matter of preserving your honesty at the expense of someone else.

Death need not be feared.

I agree. If someone who is dying is afraid, it is their fear and anguish that I want to alleviate—in any way that I can. If that must be (given the circumstances) at the expense of my own honesty, so be it. If they are not afraid, and the reason that they are not afraid has to do with beliefs that I do not hold, I am unwilling to undermine those beliefs at that point, either by being truthful or silent.

Life is full of messy situations that challenge our pat moralism. In cases where they seem to be clearly in conflict to me—where the decision is mine—I hope that I choose compassion over honesty every time (even if my own reputation suffers as a result, in the eyes of others). In cases where they are not in conflict, there is no problem.

EDIT: None of this is risk-free; I am taking a risk right now that my being bluntly honest with you is not going to cause you irremedial suffering. My decision is based, in part, on previous discussion we have had (and discussions you've had with others on here), and what they seem to say about your mental state, for example.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems likely that I'd be taken out and tortured/killed as well. So be it. I'd take that risk.

Why would I leave a person in their death-bed panic-stricken? Death need not be feared. I'd spend as much time as necessary to help them understand that. The one person I knew who died from a terminal disease seemed to take comfort from our discussions on li ...[text shortened]... about 'freedom of conscience'? Not everyone operates from the viewpoint of the self.

You seem to believe that life will never present you with a stark choice between honesty and compassion—that there will always be an “out”, so to speak. I sincerely and truthfully hope that is the case for you.

__________________________________

Now, does anyone else have any theological view on “baptism on behalf of the dead”?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I cannot think of any situation that justifies lying.

Kirk could have simply asked the parents why they wished to have a baptism. If his beliefs did not coincide with theirs, he could have told them that. The parents could then decide whether or not Kirk was the right person to perform the baptism.

A little honest communication can go a long way.

I think what you are focusing on is the content of what I did and whether it is consistent with my beliefs. I am more interested in the process of what happened. Had I asked them why and proceeded to tell them my beliefs, it would be another burden for them to carry in that moment. In a moment like that, my beliefs are none of their business as their beliefs are none of my business. They simply asked for help with a function that was meaningful to them. As Fritz Perls once said, "Why is a bull$hit question."

A couple of years ago I was talking to a rabbi who was on-call at a hospital and had a similar ethical dilema where a Catholic family asked for what they used to call "last rites". I think they call it sacrament of the sick now. Anyway, this was out of his tradition, but he did the right thing and hunted down the sacrament and prayed as the family had requested. He did good pastoral care. A good priest would be in integrity if the situation were reversed and he read the mourner's kaddish.

I am not asked or expected to indoctrinate or educate in those kinds of situations. I am only there to meet a relational expectation. I once went to a death in the middle of the night many years ago. WHen I got there I found all this glitter all over the dead woman's body. It was an untraditional experience for this family and group of friends. If smoking weed and flinging glitter around does it, who am I to judge.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I think what you are focusing on is the content of what I did and whether it is consistent with my beliefs. I am more interested in the process of what happened. Had I asked them why and proceeded to tell them my beliefs, it would be another burden for them to carry in that moment. In a moment like that, my beliefs are none of their business as their ...[text shortened]... group of friends. If smoking weed and flinging glitter around does it, who am I to judge.

This is not an unusual situation for ministers in chaplaincy, is it? To minister outside one’s own belief system? Doesn’t it kind of go with the territory if you’re willing to do that work? Rabbi or priest or pastor, or whatever?

Originally posted by vistesd
This is not an unusual situation for ministers in chaplaincy, is it? To minister outside one’s own belief system? Doesn’t it kind of go with the territory if you’re willing to do that work? Rabbi or priest or pastor, or whatever?

Not unusual at all, but I kind of draw the line with snakes. I still have some growing to do.

Originally posted by vistesd
In the case of your scenario with the person suffering from a terminal disease, I have no quarrel—as a specific-case decision. I’m sure you were a help to her; just as I hope I was with my father. When telling the truth is not cruel, and/or silence is an option free from adverse interpretation by the other, I have no quarrel with you at all. ...[text shortened]... ou've had with others on here), and what they seem to say about your mental state, for example.

You and I operate using different conceptual models, so I doubt we'll come to agreement on this topic.

However, once again I have to take exception with your projecting YOUR conceptual model on MY motivation:
"...it is the matter of preserving your honesty at the expense of someone else."

Once again, not everyone operates from the viewpoint of the self.

Originally posted by vistesd
You seem to believe that life will never present you with a stark choice between honesty and compassion—that there will always be an “out”, so to speak. I sincerely and truthfully hope that is the case for you.

__________________________________

Now, does anyone else have any theological view on “baptism on behalf of the dead”?

I don't see honesty and compassion as being at odds with each other. I recognize that our society teaches us otherwise.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I think what you are focusing on is the content of what I did and whether it is consistent with my beliefs. I am more interested in the process of what happened. Had I asked them why and proceeded to tell them my beliefs, it would be another burden for them to carry in that moment. In a moment like that, my beliefs are none of their business as their ...[text shortened]... group of friends. If smoking weed and flinging glitter around does it, who am I to judge.

Your beliefs may be their business depending on their expectation of the ritual and what they view as necessary for it to be truly "meaningful".

Funny, I think of "Why" as THE question of substance.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Your beliefs may be their business depending on their expectation of the ritual and what they view as necessary for it to be truly "meaningful".

Funny, I think of "Why" as THE question of substance.

OK, I'll give you an example of another instance in which I did something that would be a little more in keeping with where you are going. I was once asked to do a funeral for a man who had quite an extensive "closet." No problem. I agreed to do it. Well, his family approached me the next day and wanted a copy of what I was going to say so they could proof it and "approve" it. I told them I was unwilling to do that. When they asked why I simply said that a funeral would be pointless if they had already read what I was going to say. I also told them that I hoped they could experience the mystery and uncertainty of what they might hear. They decided to find another minister who would meet their needs. That was fine and I wished them well.

Here is the difference in these two scenarios. The first one of the infant death, the parents were looking for consolation and presence. In the above case, they were merely seeking to control me and perpetuate secrets.

There is the story of Elisha in Kings where he tells Naaman what he must do to be healed of his leprosy. Namaan is not to happy with what he is told. Too bad. The prophet names the river. It is not the other way around.

Originally posted by kirksey957
OK, I'll give you an example of another instance in which I did something that would be a little more in keeping with where you are going. I was once asked to do a funeral for a man who had quite an extensive "closet." No problem. I agreed to do it. Well, his family approached me the next day and wanted a copy of what I was going to say so they could ...[text shortened]... h what he is told. Too bad. The prophet names the river. It is not the other way around.

It's your world. The rest of us just live in it 🙂