An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Court Ordered Salvation?
Mother faces contempt, jail for baptizing children
A Shelby County mother faces contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for baptizing her two children without the knowledge or consent of her ex-husband.
This week the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Lauren Jarrell must face a criminal contempt hearing for violating a court order that said major decisions regarding the religious upbringing of her two children should be made jointly with the children’s father.
Both parents are Christian. Emmett Blake Jarrell, the father, is a member of the United Methodist Church, and she’s a Presbyterian.
Are these people serious? Baptism IS a big deal, but honestly, I don’t see the difference between the Methodists and Presbyterians. I’ve been to both, and they are quite similar in ‘rituals’ and teachings. Depending on the church, they’re both pretty left in my opinion. But that’s not the issue.
The father, according to court records, thought the children should be baptized when they are older and better able to understand the significance of the baptismal ceremony. The couple, according to court records, had even consulted a minister when they were married because they couldn’t agree what age was best for the kids to be baptized. Records show the children will be 5 and 7 next month.
I was about a year the first time I was baptized. My dad was Lutheran, my mom was Presbyterian, and I was baptized in the Lutheran church. My understanding was that it didn’t matter where, it just mattered if anything happened to me begore I was old enough to understand the whole process, you know, like DIE, or some such, that I would have a slot in heaven. It made my parents feel better. Then, I was raised in the Presbyterian church. It started changing back when, and that pretty much put a stop to my church attendance. Of course, I was also going through “that stage”. 
I don’t suppose the father has considered that the mom was concerned about her kids souls? Yes, it’s a decision that the kids can make when they are older, but no one ever said you can’t be baptized more than once. I’ve done it 3 times. 
“Obviously she knew that the father did not want the children baptized at that age and she did that without telling him,” Memphis attorney Any Amundsen, who is not involved in the case, said of the mother. “She violated the court order.”
Where’s all the hoopla about ‘separation of church and state’, which doesn’t exist, but it’s always dragged out when anyone has the audacity to go against someone’s ‘wishes’. And let me ask this….if they are both REALLY Christians, why are they divorced? I know that sometimes, things happen and that 2 people can no longer live together as man and wife, but usually, it’s because at least one of them are NOT really Christian, and they are not following the teachings of Christ. Just sayin’.
The Court of Appeals decision sides with the father, who had asked that his ex-wife be convicted of criminal contempt after discovering that she baptized the kids against his wishes.
A lower court has already found the mother in contempt of court. The appellate court decision overturned that decision and said criminal contempt proceedings are more appropriate because the mother can’t undo the baptisms.
Yeah…ok…so they were suppose to discuss the important issues, and yes, baptism is a very important issue, but honestly, it seems to me that the father is being petty. It doesn’t sound like his concern is for his kids, but getting back at his ex-wife for making a decision, I would assume, in the hopes that her children will be saved? It’s not the water that is the most important part of baptism, although, yes, it is meant to ‘wash away sin’, but it is symbolic. What is important is the cleansing of the soul, and that is a decision the kids will make as they get older.
Court records show that the mother argued that it was wrong for the lower court to find her in contempt it was tantamount to preferring the father’s religious views on baptism over hers.
But the Court of Appeals disagreed.
Why are the courts even involved? Does daddy have ties with the legal system? Just askin’.
“Mother is correct that courts `must maintain strict neutrality in cases involving religious disputes between divorced parents’ and they may not `prefer the religious views of one parent over another unless one parent’s religious beliefs and practices threaten the health and well-being of the child,” Judge Alan E. Highers wrote. “However, simply put, this is not a religious dispute.” Highers said the court is only being asked to determine whether the mother can be found in contempt for failing to follow the court order.
Well yeah…actually, it is a religious dispute. Obviously, I don’t know all the facts…just what I’m reading here, but it actually sounds like a power play. Mom is concerned for the kids’ salvation and dad got his knickers in a twist because he was left out. There’s a reason why he is the EX, meaning former, husband. I’m rather curious as to whether or not he’s a control freak. Just speculation on my part. And I do not understand why this was part of the divorce agreement to begin with. This is a very personal matter, and not one for the courts to decide.
Nashville attorney Helen Rogers says the courts ought to stay away from these kinds of decisions.
“How would a court decide between baptizing a Presbyterian and a Methodist or a Catholic,” Rogers asked. She wondered whether a court could step in and order the child of a Muslim and a Jew to attend a synagogue or a mosque. The problem, she said, is that the standard parenting plan in Tennessee orders many parents to mediation if they can’t jointly decide on major decisions involving religious upbringing. If they can’t agree even after mediation, she said, it ultimately means that a court has to decide.
Why does the state have ANY say on how or where a child should be brought up, or baptized? To me, that is a complete violation of personal liberty.. personal RELIGIOUS liberty!
“The bigger kind of global look at this is should religious decision-making be a private matter or should it be something that a court orders to begin with,” Rogers asked.
That would be a ‘definitely NOT!”
However, Amundsen said the courts are only following state law, which says the courts have to consider religious upbringing when it comes to parental decision making.
Both attorneys said it’s not unusual for parents to disagree on religious upbringing.
Why are the courts involved, at all, in ‘parental decision making’? Someone got their head screwed on wrong, and forgot that the parents have the final say in their kids’ upbringing?
If the mother is convicted, she could face up to 20 days in jail and a $100 fine.
She can’t undo the baptism, and daddy should pull his head out of his hinder, and let it drop. The kids are more important than him and his desires. Yeah, I understand he wanted to be involved, but shouldn’t the salvation of his children come before his wants? Seems to me, that’s what mom’s concern was when she took this action. Unless, of course, it was to get back at him for some reason, which has been known to happen on a regular basis. Women can be quite vindictive. Then again, so can men. There is no mention of whether or not the kids wanted to be baptized, and really, shouldn’t THAT be the first consideration, of both the parents, and (*gritting teeth*) the courts? Seems to me that neither the court or the dad are considering what would happen to the kids if mom spends 20 days in jail. As for the fine? Well, I’d be happy to take up a collection if it comes to that!
“… but no one ever said you can’t be baptized more than once. I’ve done it 3 times.”
Uh, not so much, Kate. Traditional Christian theology says that baptism can only be done one time, and for this reason, almost all Christian Churches recognize each others baptisms. That certainly does not stop people from going through the motions, but we are only admitted into Christ’s Kingdom once. It make a lasting mark on the soul, and it does not depend upon whether the person being baptized is fully able to understand or not. If they are not, they should sponsors (godparents) who assume the responsibilities for assuring that they will be taught as they grow older.
All that having been said, I was baptized twice myself in the Methodist Church as an infant. The minister wanted to take movies, and he did not have his gear ready at the first time, so some 5 months later, they re-acted the whole thing. I was way too young to care at the time.
This father does not have Methodist theology behind him; he is standing all by himself. Methodist baptize the youngest of infants, so his children’s ages present no problems at all.
“almost all Christian Churches recognize each others baptisms”
Not Southern Baptist , they make you do it over if :
“The adopted baptism guideline stated candidates must have been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church of another denomination that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone and the administrator of the baptism must believe in eternal security.”
and alot of times it must be in a approved Baptist Church only
Well, now you see the reason for that “almost” in my statement. Baptist generally stand apart from other Christians on almost every issue, making up their own theology as they go. So I am not a bit surprised at your raising a Baptist exception.
This sometimes makes me wonder about the Christianity of the Baptists. I really don’t know enough to say much meaningful, other than that they always seem to disagree with everybody, and I mean everybody else in the Christian Church. I have to ask myself how that can be, why are they the “right ones” and everybody else is “wrong”? Not that I think it is worth arguing about for a minute, only that it is odd to my mind.
As you said, “Not Southern Baptist , they make you do it over if : ” That seems to me to assume that the Holy Ghost is a Southern Baptist and does not function in other denominations. I’ll let you in on a little secret. That’s not true. The Holy Ghost is greatly grieved at the existence of may different denominations, but He certainly does not confine Himself to working on one only.
I’ll let you two Docs battle this one out…but I have one question: If you had the opportunity to reaffirm and recommit your faith, wouldn’t you take it? And if you had the chance to be baptized in the Jordon, just like Jesus, would you do it?
Kate, what Jesus said was
Matthew 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
He did not say anything about bring folks back to the Jordan to be baptized, he did not say to be sure to do it in a Southern Baptist Convention Church by full immersion, he simply said DO IT! I have not been to the river Jordan, so I have not had that “opportunity.” My wife has been there, and she most certainly was not re-baptized. It would not occur to either of us to do such a thing, because we believe that when we were baptized, we were admitted into Christ’s Kingdom, and that does not need to be repeated; it does not expire.
It’s really not about whether the baptism is valid or not it’s about the government putting people in jail for practicing the Christian religion. Small steps.
Doc…Southern Baptists are Bible based. NO PC nonsense… and no, they/we don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is a Baptist. Sheesh!
Matthew 3:16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
Kind of hard to come up from the water without being immersed.
And I know full well I didn’t have to go to the Jordon, but I was there, and it was like a spiritual awakening. An “I know that I know that I know”. There was a bigger change in me than I thought possible.
wyosis is right…the issue is the government interfering.
“baptism is a very important issue, but honestly, it seems to me that the father is being petty”
These two statements don’t seem to make sense beside each other. If baptism is a big deal then doesn’t the father have a right to be upset when his children are baptized without his knowledge? He’s not being petty at all, he’s simply exercising his rights to be involved in major life decisions involving his children.
“Why are the courts even involved? Does daddy have ties with the legal system?”
The courts are involved because the mother blatantly violated the terms of their divorce agreement.
“Why are the courts involved, at all, in ‘parental decision making’? Someone got their head screwed on wrong, and forgot that the parents have the final say in their kids’ upbringing?”
Of course parents should have the final say regarding raising their children, but one parent should not have more of a say over the other parent when they have agreed beforehand that major decisions would be made mutually.
Lots of arguments have been made in favor of the mother and her concern about their childrens’ souls and spiritual well being. Couldn’t the same argument be made in favor of the father’s actions? To me, the father was simply trying to protect his children from having a major decision in their life made for them and give them the time to decide for themselves if and when they wanted to be baptized and I applaud him for it.
Parents baptize their kids all the time. I got sprinkled at a tiny person. It really did make a difference in my life knowing that my parents had a concern for my soul. If the mother is concerned for her children getting to heaven if something happened to them before they are old enough to make the choice themselves, then why is the father so dead set against her actions. It’s not something that should have been included in the divorce degree. That is something that should be between mom and dad, and the kids, not the courts.
Just because “parents baptize their kids all the time” doesn’t make it right. Serious religious decisions seem a very personal choice to me, and I’m not sure I would want anyone making those types of decisions on behalf – even my parents.
But back to the particulars of the case. Why shouldn’t it be included in the divorce agreement? Is this major life decision not as important as educational upbringing, medical care, etc? If those decisions are to be made jointly, then there should be discussion about the decision to baptize as well. I would wager that most agreements that specify that major life decisions are to be made mutually contain this type of language – mine certainly does.
As you point out, this decision was supposed to be made between the parents and the children. . .until the mother decided to make the decision on her own without consulting the father. The courts have made no decision about the baptism or how the children should be raised. The court made a correct decision that the mother violated the provisions of an agreement that she made with the father in front of the court.
So you’re saying it’s wrong for parents to baptize their kids? Ok…whatever. I still say it was something that evidently was extremely important to the mother, and the father decided to press the issue. So now, if she’s convicted, her kids will be without their mother for 20 days….and this is right? Uh huh…got it!