Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Jerome, Nov 25, 2014.
Judge Rules Knoxville Baby Can Be Baptized Against Mother's Will
This man is a senior pastor? Lovely.
Fortunately, the baptism means nothing but he still has zero right to do what he's doing. I'd be livid.
I want to have a measure of compassion for her situation, seems like the judge punted on this to avoid being involved, even though that is a judges job. I don't understand why a father would act this way, bit cold from what I could see, on his part.
Then the flesh pops up and I wonder....
Perhaps she should have thought about that before as a Baptist, marrying a Lutheren pastor. If it didn't matter when getting married, why does it matter now?
I think the father of the baby is the son of the Senior pastor.
In the grand scheme of things, yes, this baptism is meaningless. Unfortunately, there is a chance so much strife and contention over religion could affect the child in later years.
Oh - OK - misread it. Thanks.
I'm sure the child will really appreciate being the pawn in her parent's feud. That is going to turn out just great.
In Tennessee the custodial parent has a bundle of rights, including the right to make significant decisions concerning the child’s religious training. On the other hand the noncustodial parent has the right to direct the child’s activities during the periods of visitation. In this case those two rights collided.
The article does not provide much insight into the rationale for the judge’s decision, and it gives no information at all on the underlying facts. There are several possibilities:
1. The mother may have promised before the marriage to allow the couple’s children to be raised as Lutherans (a good reason for the decision).
2. The judge may be an unchurched individual who regards religious choices as no more significant than whether a person drives a Ford or a Chevy (not a good reason for the decision and would show an absence of judicial maturity).
3. The judge may be a member of a church who regards infant baptism as the sine qua non for the removal of original sin (not a good reason for the decision).
In any case it looks like activities during visitation trumps the right to religious upbringing, at least in this judge’s mind. He is a trial judge, so his decision will not set any precedent in the state of Tennessee. However, as far as court intervention is concerned, it didn’t happen. The mother sought the order and the judge refused. There would only have been intervention if he had granted the order.
I think if one parent is for the Baptism,and the other is against it,it is wrong .
One because He should of talked more about it to his Ex instead of going behind her back,it will only make things worse, and they are not thinking about the child in this fight they are having.
But when you have a lot of anger against a spouse then you will do things regardless of how the other will react.
He should put it off until both parties can come up with a answer.
The Devil is mighty strong in all of this,and they need a lot of prayer.
Also how can the pastor go ahead with this knowing how the child parents are acting? Shouldnt he be sitting down with both of them,instead of pouring gas on the fire?
He didn’t go behind her back. He invited her to the baptism. He could have done it and then told her. Or he could have done it and not told her at all. You suggest working things out and coming up with an answer. He wants a baptism; she doesn’t. How do you compromise on that? In these situations there is a winner and a loser. Even if there is an agreement, one party is going to believe that he (or she) has lost.
And you can't really say these parents are ignoring the best interest of the child. The mother thinks infant baptism is wrong. The father, OTOH in his Lutheran tradition, believes from the depths of his heart that the child will go to hell if he dies without being baptized.
Sorry should of made it clearer.What I was saying is if she did not want this, then the two should of talked more about it, because with things bad already he should of known it would make it worse