A few years ago when the 2008 US presidential election campaign was getting underway I became interested in the left wing of the evangelical movement. Remember the book God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It? That book, written by Jim Wallis, examined how the Religious Right had “hijacked” religion, making it synonomous with Republican Party principles and reducing it to a few hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage.
Wallis, himself a noted evangelical, charged that the Christian Right’s narrow focus on these two issues was often mean-spirited (read: intolerant and homophobic) and ignored the social gospel entirely. Where was the concern over “issues such as poverty and pandemic diseases, environmental care and climate change, trafficking and human rights, genocide, war and peace”? Recall that in 2005, the year of the book’s publication, objections to the Bush admin and America’s presence in Iraq were peaking and leftie evangelicals were a big part of that movement.
Somewhere along the way, the Christian Right decided it needed to do more than just sit around farting its twin nyets—“No abortion and no gays.” Probably when it realized the GOP had a good chance of losing the Whitehouse and more and more disgruntled evangelicals appeared to be leaving the church. None of this was lost on best-selling evangelical author Rick Warren, quoted in 2007 as saying: “We’ve got some people who only focus on moral purity and couldn’t care less about the poor, the sick, the uneducated. And they haven’t done zip for those people.”
Familiar Territory
So you see, it all started with good intentions. The moderate wing of the evangelical movement embarrassed the Christian right into doing something and the something they settled on was orphans.
Maybe they were just groping for familiar territory. Christian adoption agencies had existed for some time to separate wayward girls and women from their newborns. So had missionary organizations, some of which had done some excellent work in the developing world. Also, by 2003, contemporary Christian singer Steven Curtis Chapman and his wife Mary Beth had started their own organization to promote adoption. They had adopted from China twice. (Maria Sue Chunxi Chapman, was killed in an accident in May 2008.) Their charity, Shaohannah’s Hope—later renamed Show Hope—started offering grants to “qualified” Christian families wishing to adopt at home or abroad. Like Warren, Chapman reaches millions with his message; he’s sold 10 million albums to date.
The spring of 2007 marked the start of a three-day summit in Colorado Springs with Rick Warren, Focus on the Family, and Campus Crusade for Christ to talk about Christians devoting more resources to adoption, fostering, and care of children in need around the world. This was the first time Focus had ever been involved in adoption and “orphan care.”
Some context for the event is provided in this Los Angeles Times article published at that time:
Over the next six months, Christian media will be saturated with stories and ads touting adoption and foster care as a scriptural imperative, an order direct from God. Tens of thousands of pastors will be urged to preach about the issue, set up support groups for couples considering taking in troubled kids, and even invite state child-welfare officials to talk to their congregations.
. . .
Several speakers [at the Colorado Springs Summit] talked of an urgent need to settle children in Christian homes that have “both a mommy and a daddy” — an implicit rebuke of same-sex parenting. Others suggested Christians could bolster their case for protecting the “pre-born” by proving that their concern for the child extends beyond the womb.
On his God’s Politics blog (May 14, 2007 entry), Wallis greeted the development with optimism, saying:
I’ve had some good conversations with Rick Warren about his deep passion to serve the poor. He’s helping to guide a shift among religious conservatives that should not go without notice or welcome. I pray that this movement keeps moving – beyond personal changes that produce acts of charity (where it always begins) to structural changes that bring about social justice. [emphasis mine]
Certainly, the adoption part of that idea caught on. Here, for example, is an article about how the adoption wagon rolled out in Dallas, Texas, around the same time.
Adoption Theology
In the years that followed, more and more Christians adopted and are now being urged to adopt as part of the “Great Commission.” In the Christian tradition, the Great Commission is the instruction of Jesus Christ to spread Christianity everywhere. In other words, open evangelization of adoptees is on the table, not under it.
Increasingly, parallels have also been drawn between Christians being adopted into God’s family and Christians adopting children. According to the just-released Together for Adoption e-book (produced by Together for Adoption, an organization founded to ”equip churches and educate Christians theologically about orphan care and . . . adoption”):
. . . God predestined us for adoption as sons, that He marked us out for adoption as sons.
Man did not invent adoption, God did! Adoption was in the mind of God before man even had a mind! Adoption was a vertical reality (i.e., God’s decision to adopt us) long before it ever had a horizontal expression (i.e., couples adopting children). Therefore, the reality of vertical adoption, should influence how we think about orphan care and horizontal adoption.
In June 2009, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution “On Adoption and Orphan Care” urging churches and families to get involved with adoption in whatever way they can. The SBC is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States and the second largest religious body, with 42,000 churches and 16 million adherents. It is also one of the more conservative. (Following the 2009 convention, Jimmy Carter parted with the SBC over its ruling that Eve was responsible for original sin, that wives should submit to their husbands, and that women cannot become deacons, pastors or military chaplains.)
Here is an excerpt of the adoption resolution.
For the full resolution, go here.
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have articulated an unequivocal commitment to the sanctity of all human life, born and unborn; and
WHEREAS, Churches defined by the Great Commission must be concerned for the evangelism of children—including those who have no parents; and
WHEREAS, Upward of 150 million orphans now languish without families in orphanages, group homes, and placement systems in North America and around the world; and
WHEREAS, Our Father loves all of these children, and a great multitude of them will never otherwise hear the gospel of Jesus Christ; now, therefore, be it
. . .
RESOLVED, That we call on each Southern Baptist family to pray for guidance as to whether God is calling them to adopt or foster a child or children; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage our pastors and church leaders to preach and teach on God’s concern for orphans; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we commend churches and ministries that are equipping families to provide financial and other resources to those called to adopt, through grants, matching funds, or loans. . .
The mover-and-shaker behind this resolution was none other than Russell Moore, author of Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches. An adoptive father, pastor, and theology school dean in Louisville, Kentucky, Moore believes that, “God is calling the people of Christ to see the face of Jesus in the faces of orphans in North America and around the world.” Here he recalls his feelings as the adoption resolution he proposed at the SBC was passed:
I was overwhelmed with emotion on the platform to see my sons, two little ex-orphans, looking out on a sea of yellow ballots as thousands of Southern Baptists affirmed that we want to be the people who love fatherless children. I realized that, in an alternative story, my boys would still be in an orphanage, not knowing even the name of Christ Jesus. But here they are, at the Southern Baptist Convention, calling by their very presence the world’s largest Protestant denomination to recognize there are hundreds of thousands of children as helpless and alone as they once were.
A few weeks later, at a special Sunday night service at the church where Moore serves as pastor, he observed:
We had invited all of our children who had been adopted to join us on the platform, and they carried flags of the states or countries from which they had come.
The platform was swarming with children, including many toddlers and infants. The thing that struck me was how few of these children seemed to recognize the flags in their hands, but they all knew the words to Jesus Loves Me. Adoption and orphan care is, quite simply, both Great Commandment and Great Commission ministry. When congregations adopt, foster, or minister to orphans, people are saved.
One of our readers attempted an e-mail exchange with Moore here.
Just a footnote to this section: it’s no accident that more conservative denominations are taking the lead in adoption. Scattered throughout the discourse are many references to “men leading” and adoption being connected to the man’s role as leader, protector, and provider.
How Many Christians Would It Take?
No one is really sure how many Christians have adopted but some Christian pro-adoption advocates have tried to figure out how many born-again Christians it would take to adopt all the world’s orphans. That number is claimed to be somewhere between 6 and 7% of the born-again pop, or 48 million born-again Christians–larger than the population of Canada. I’m not sure why only the born-agains are being considered but maybe the other Christians wouldn’t do an adequate job of proselytizing.
In some churches, adoption is being described as contagious. “I know of small churches with 80 adopted children!” said Allison Dear, founder of the adoption support ministry Welcome Home. (Quote and longer article here. Have the barf bag handy when they start talking about adoption as a blessing for birthmothers.)
Who’s Involved?
These are so many organizations involved with promoting adoption in Christian churches I can’t name them all. Safe to say, though, that evangelical Christians are literally being bombarded with the message to adopt or support those who do. Some of them alphabetical order:
Are you a Christian couple, called by God to enlarge your family through adoption, committed to training and educating your children in accordance with Biblical principles? Need financial assistance in order to complete the adoption? Abba will help you with an interest-free loan.
Christian Alliance for Orphans
Umbrella group of organizations that fundraise and “equip churches as they grow effective orphan care, foster youth and adoption ministries.” Holds an annual summit where people get together to learn how to start church-based orphan ministries, create adoption support funds, network with other churches, and so forth.
Now in its fourth year, this campaign is sponsored by Hope for Orphans, Focus on the Family and Show Hope (mentioned in the fifth paragraph of this post.) Together with the Christian Alliance, they promote many events, including those associated with Orphan Sunday.
Launched in 2006 by Focus on the Family, the campaign name is trademarked and the emphasis is kids in foster care. From the website: “The Orphan Care Initiative is designed to inspire, equip, and engage the body of Christ along with and through the Church to bring orphans into a Christ-centered family structure.”
Started in Zambia, where (it is reported) several members of a church heeded a pastor’s call to support some children in the local community orphaned through AIDS and poverty. Some of the assembled literally took off their shoes and emptied their wallets to help. An American doing mission work in Zambia witnessed the event and went on to launch Orphan Sunday, first in Zambia and then in North America.
Now, it’s interesting: I found a notice announcing the very first Orphan Sunday held (I’m presuming) in North America. You can read it here–it’s the fifth notice down. Notice the emphasis on prayer, donations, and youth projects, i.e., keeping kids in their communities. Not a word about adoption.
That has changed. Today, Orphan Sunday is an adoption lovefest where permanent separation of children from their communities seems to take precedence over other forms of help. Church members who don’t find themselves “called to adopt” are directed to support those who are.
Oh but not single people; they don’t get any encouragement.
Orphan Sunday is huge and getting bigger. Click here to see a map and description of the events across the US. Note: there are so many events, it takes the page awhile to load.
This group primarily holds conferences that explore the so-called theological link between vertical (God to humans) and horizontal (human to human) adoption.
Issues to Think About
I am not anti-adoption and if there are children who have lost their parents and kin and cannot be adopted within their communities, then international adoption is preferable to living in a group home or institution. Also don’t have a problem with Christians adopting—in fact I am one. IMHO, you can’t exclude a faith group from adoptive parenthood any more than you can exclude singles or gay men and lesbians. So I am not one of those people who thinks adoption should be discouraged through discrimination.
My problem is with the way evangelicals appear to be approaching adoption—without consideration for might be called acceptable adoption practice, or for any of the ethical issues at the forefront of adoption discourse today such as original family and identity, corruption, trafficking, involuntary relinquishment caused by poverty or lack of resources such as medical insurance (often known as abandonment).
Also deeply concerning is the manner in which children’s original faiths are being dismissed or demonized. Most of you know about the now infamous jade incident; if you aren’t, go here. In researching this article I also came across postings about an appearance by Randy and Danna Stinson at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Randy Stinson is executive director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and he and his wife have adopted two daughters from Taiwan. At the end of their adoption presentation, Randy Stinson said (and I had to read this several times to believe it):
“The girls we adopted were in a situation of worshipping their ancestors. We rescued them out of that life, out of life with no parents, and brought them into a Christian home.”
Ooookaaaay. I can’t be sure, but the girls were probably Buddhist and honoured their ancestors, which could mean having an ancestor altar or marking the anniversary of the deaths of ancestors. I would imagine that the importance of parents and elders in general in Chinese culture would also come into play here. Not only is what Stinson did stinky adoption practice, but he ought to be aware that previous experiments with assimilating people into the dominant culture and religion through force have generally flopped, resulting in tremendous pain and dislocation generations down the road. I feel immensely sorry for those girls.
So let’s go back to what Jim Wallis said when he heard about the Colorado Springs adoption summit. He said:
I pray that this movement keeps moving – beyond personal changes that produce acts of charity (where it always begins) to structural changes that bring about social justice.
Bingo. That’s what’s missing here: the structural changes. In its place, an unwavering belief that God has called Christians to empty the world’s orphanages and baptize the little heathens. And that is why when Russell Moore wrote that he realized “in an alternative story, my boys would still be in an orphanage, not knowing even the name of Christ Jesus,” he couldn’t even imagine the other alternative story.
That in a more just world, those boys might still be with their families.
- Jessica Pegis
____________________________________________________
PS: In Margie’s post on this subject, she asked: “Honestly, I don’t get why the Donaldsons and AACs and large ethical adoption agencies aren’t all over this stuff. It’s bad for kids, bad for adoption, and frankly bad for religion.”
If you think they should be, please consider dropping them a line. Reference this post if you wish.
PPS: Orphan Sunday is November 8.
Filed under: adoption, critical thinking, fatherlessness, kids, life, solo life , Abba Fund, adoption, Christian adoption, Christian Alliance for Orphans, Cry of the Orphan, GOP, Great Commission, international adoption, Jim Wallis, Orphan Care Initiative, Orphan Sunday, Rick Warren, Russell Moore, Southern Baptist Convention, Together for Adoption
Thanks for this, this is excellent information and a clear picture of how we got from Point A (help the orphans and widows) to Point B (take every orphan you can get your hands on, and if the supply runs out make a few of your own.)
Clearly these movements aren’t following UNICEF’s position on intercountry adoption, which can be read here: http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41118.html, or their definition of “orphan” http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45290.html.
Absolutely–let’s some quote of it. From your second link:
“Of the more than 132 million children classified as orphans, only 13 million have lost both parents. Evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of orphans are living with a surviving parent grandparent, or other family member. 95 per cent of all orphans are over the age of five.”
and
“UNICEF’s ‘orphan’ statistic might be interpreted to mean that globally there are 132 million children in need of a new family, shelter, or care. This misunderstanding may then lead to responses that focus on providing care for individual children rather than supporting the families and communities that care for orphans and are in need of support”
It seems so sad that people would adopt only to remove the children from their own heritage rather than to adopt to provide them with parents.
What would happen if the child didn’t wish to be Christian? Would they ask for another?
Thanks for the article
[...] Rescued from Buddhism: A brief history of the Christian adoption movement « O Solo Mama osolomama.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/rescued-from-buddhism-a-brief-history-of-the-christian-adoption-movement – view page – cached Rescued from Buddhism: A brief history of the Christian adoption movement — From the page [...]
Thank you. So much.
This was a very thoughtful synopsis and critique. I am glad to see it. I think that the promotion of international adoption through evangelical Christian churches and organizations is nothing new, but a renewal of the former proselytizing that was the foundation of international adoptions in the U.S. I have written about this from the Korean adoption perspective a few times, including a chapter in Outsiders Within which specifically discusses how Christianity played a role in the development of the Korean adoption program via Harry and Bertha Holt.
My adoption file contains all kinds of conservative Christian propaganda that exhorts the salvation of heathen babies in South Korea through adoption. The Holts themselves wrote in their literature to prospective adoptive parents “We would ask all of you who are Christians to pray to God that he will give us the wisdom and strength and the power to deliver his little children from the cold and misery and darkness of Korea” and “It is our personal desire that these children go into Christian homes. We want to let these children we serve come to know Jesus.” The Holts required prospective adoptive parents to include statements of faith as on their applications.
An Immigration and Naturalization Service officer in charge of adoptions at the U.S. embassy in Seoul in the 1980’s, worried that the more extreme religious adoption agencies viewed adoptions as “a quick means of spreading the gospel, a head start on proselytizing.”
I found an article about the history of Holt and Korean adoption. It’s at
http://www.tobiashubinette.se/adoption_history.pdf
Here’s an excerpt:
“Actually it is most likely that without the activities of Holt, international adoption from Korea would never have developed into the gigantic dimensions that it did. From the beginning, according to many vocal critics from the professional adoption field, the Holt agency conducted speedy procedures, overused proxy adoption, making “mail order babies” possible, disregarded minimum standards, chartered whole flights filled up with children which were perceived by many as modern slave ships, and accepted couples who had been rejected by other agencies, while at the same time prioritising Christian fundamentalists as adoptive parents and paying attention to specifications for age and sex as well as racematching
(Herman, 2002).
“Harry Holt, having no previous experience at all in child welfare, was instead feverishly driven by a Christian fundamentalist zeal to rescue the children of Korea. Holt, quoting Isaiah 43:5, prophetically conceived international adoption to play a part in a divine scheme for the fulfilment of God’s will (Holt, [1956] 1992a: 55): I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
“The evangelical couple from Oregon turned into celebrities for their missionary-style emergency program to rescue the mixed children of Korea, and attracted so much attention in both Korea and in the U.S. that many today believe that they not only initiated adoption of Korean children but international adoption itself. Successful lobbying by Holt saw the realisation of the so-called Orphan Bill passed by the American Congress in 1957, thus replacing the temporary Refugee Relief Act and securing the future for international adoption from Korea to the U.S. In 1961, with a congressional amendment of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, international adoption was finally given a permanent place in American law. This bill also put a stop to proxy adoption (Breckenridge, 1977).”
Ah, how right you are–this does reach back. Of course, int’l adoption receded for awhile, between the time adoption from Korea dwindled and Romania, China, and Russia heated up (without the religious baggage) and I think most of us have forgotten how openly religious adoption was formerly.
Thanks for weighing in! PS: I can’t seem to get your blog from your link. . .did you delete it, move it? (I can, however, get it through Malinda’s blog, AdoptionTalk.)
Jess – you have mORE THAN NAILED IT!! This should be an article print, not just a blog post. This needs wide distribution!
The other aspect of this that is very troublesome to me is the fundraising that is encouraged individually and by churches to receive children – some of whom might be kidnapped or coerced from their parents – instead of raising funds to help find other solutions for families in crisis.
Also disturbing is the use of the highly inflated figure of 150M orphans. That is higher even than the 143M usually used of which nearly 90% are not orphans, but have families and many are ineligible for adoption.
I assume you know that i covered this issue a while back in an article entitled Adoption and the Role of the Religious Right:
http://www.countercurrents.org/riben041107.htm
You neglected to note that NCfA was also at the May 07 3-day summit! They are totally in bed together!
Thanks for this excellent and chilling article, Osolo. The arrogance of Evangelical Christians to think that they have all the answers and that their culture and religion is superior are so disgusting. “Orphan” is such an old-fashioned word hiding very modern corruption, greed, and shoddy adoption practice.
In an odd coincidence, I just posted another quote from Tobias (from the same article?) on my blog:
Tobias Hübinette notes that “[b]oth the slaves and the adoptees are separated from their parents, siblings, relatives and significant others at an early age, stripped of their original cultures and languages, reborn at harbours and airports, Christianized, re-baptized; both assume the name of their master/parent and, in the end, only retain a racialised, non-white body that has been branded or given a case number. … These children were objects of rescue fantasies and relief projects for the European homeland populations and especially feminist and Christian philanthropist and humanist groups.” (“Between European Colonial Trafficking, American Empire-. Building and Nordic Social Engineering: Rethinking International Adoption From a Postcolonial and Feminist Perspective.”)
Dan Cruver, the director of the Christian group, Together for Adoption http://www.togetherforadoption.org/ and a promoter of Orphan Sunday, emailed me last night. He wrote, in part: “Adoption IS the result of tragedy. That anyone would be adopted is born of tragedy. The Christian’s adoption into the Family of God the Father is required as an outcome of the Fall of man from God’s favor in the Garden, a tragedy. A child’s adoption into a physical family is an outcome of parental death or abandonment or the choice of a birth mother unable to care properly for her child—all tragic situations. The tragedy of adoption ends when a new family begins. The scars remain. This does not make adoption biblically wrong or morally abhorrent; it makes it necessary. The Bible is clear on this point.”
It is? Where? And the tragedy of adoption ends at placement?
When does the act of permanently separating mother and child cease being a tragedy? Why is secondary infertility the highest among women who’ve relinquished? Why are female adoptees the last to relinquish?
Superimposing adoption American style onto our spiritual adoption by God has resulted in some messed up theology, leading to serious misconceptions about what adoption is and the role of the church in it. New terminology has emerged such as ‘vertical adoption’ and ‘horizontal adoption,’ unheard of in church history. The only similarly is the word itself; the meanings are different in crucial areas.
Jesus said unless one is born again, s/he cannot see the kingdom of God. It’s the new birth that’s required as an outcome of the Fall. Bereans, take heed – this is dangerous. The new birth has taken a backseat to salvation by adoption. The focus is adoption, adoption, adoption. Any teaching that elevates a concept beyond what Scripture intends usually demotes and distorts a more important truth, and such is the case here.
Five times Paul mentions the word ‘adoption’ in his epistles. He’s referring to placement into God’s family. W.E. Vine wrote, “God does not adopt believers as children; they are begotten as such by His Holy Spirit through faith.” Adoption describes a believer’s condition because of the new birth. God has ‘adopted’ me. Does that mean I’m one of God’s adoptees? No, I was born into His family, not adopted into it. I am His child, not His adopted child. Paul’s adoption metaphor is about standing, position, entitlement, full inheritance rights, promises, etc. Spiritual adoption doesn’t mean I’m adopted by God in the same manner children are adopted today. It doesn’t mean Jesus approves of adoption law and practice in America. God forbid.
Adoption law defines current adoption experience and it’s less than one hundred years old. Its newness alone should alert genuine believers to the falsehood of this new teaching. Adoption is the termination of parental rights and lifelong separation of mother and child. (New York state law: “Give up all rights to have custody, visit with, speak with, write to or learn about their child, forever.”) All ties to each other are severed for life. The child’s OBC is sealed and an amended one is created to replace it. Is any of this absolutely necessary to give a child a home? Of course not.
From Genesis to Revelation, there’s nothing written to support the permanent separation of biological families or falsification of birth documents. The amended birth certificate is a lie, and it’s against God’s nature to divide families forever. “You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn…” (Exodus 22:22-24). Now consider how adoptees are being mistreated by unjust laws that deny them their OBCs.
I like to think of the decades-long fight for unrestricted access to OBCs as the Fearless Moses Movement. Before his adoption, baby Moses was hidden for three months. Obviously his parents were unafraid of the king’s edict that Hebrew males be killed upon the birthing stool. As an adult adoptee, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter and he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king. Without fear, adoptees face the state demanding sealed records be opened. In Exodus 10 Moses asks Pharaoh, “How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me?” Nobody finds it easy to admit they’re wrong, especially when they’ve really screwed up and made a ton of people pissed off and unhappy. We’ve been through this before with slavery and women’s suffrage. The states of Alaska, Oregon, Kansas, Alabama, New Hampshire and Maine are the only states where adult adoptees have unrestricted access to their OBCs. How long will this nation refuse to humble itself by admitting our adoption system denies adults one of the most basic human rights – their original identity? Haven’t they waited long enough?
The truth is adopted persons have two families and no one knows this better than God. But adoption law negates this fact. Behind the amended birth certificate is the ‘as if’ myth – as if the child had no other parents. The falsified birth certificate promotes this lie and the sealed OBC fortifies it. The original family becomes a shameful, dirty secret. The birth family must be perpetually denigrated and denied to keep the ‘as if’ myth afloat. Adoption is built on the ‘as if’ fabrication and reflects the selfish emphasis on providing needy parents with children instead of the other way around.
The gospel of adoption assumes Jesus endorses the corrupt multi-billion dollar adoption industry. The gospel of adoption sanctifies state laws denying basic human rights. The gospel of adoption claims James 1:27 as its rallying cry but decimates the verse. We are to visit and support the orphan and widow, not exploit and separate them. The second half is ignored – to keep oneself unstained from the world – an impossibility when you’re walking hand-in-hand with a system based on secrets, lies and family destruction.
Amy, you rock the big one.
CRUVER: “Adoption IS the result of tragedy. That anyone would be adopted is born of tragedy. . . A child’s adoption into a physical family is an outcome of parental death or abandonment or the choice of a birth mother unable to care properly for her child—all tragic situations. The tragedy of adoption ends when a new family begins.”
Why doesn’t he get it? It doesn’t end there. That does NOTHING for the situation that resulted in a baby being available for adoption in the first place. Where’s the justice? Plus he doesn’t really understand the reality of abandonment in many countries.
AMY: “Adoption describes a believer’s condition because of the new birth. God has ‘adopted’ me. Does that mean I’m one of God’s adoptees? No, I was born into His family, not adopted into it. I am His child, not His adopted child.”
Absolutely, that’s how I understood it too. I do not see how that elevates human adoption to something divine or God-commanded.
AMY: “The truth is adopted persons have two families and no one knows this better than God.”
Oh, yeah. Would swear my life on it! Thanks, Amy, for putting yourself out there and giving these guys a run for your money.
I think it would be worth writing to Jim Wallis.
Pound Pup Legacy just awarded its Demons Of Adoption award to Bethany Christian Services. In the announcement they talk about some of the organizations osolomama mentions here as well as the prevalence of Christian-focused adoption and orphanization.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/40708
“Any teaching that elevates a concept beyond what Scripture intends usually demotes and distorts a more important truth, and such is the case here.”
Yes, yes, yes.
As in the bride of Christ. Totally has nothing to do with actual men, actual women, and actual marriage. Says nothing about marriage or priesthood. It’s a metaphor. He might as well used the vine and branches metaphor, which he also did. Grrrrrr.
I’m surprised no one has thought up the Christian cloning movement yet – after all, God set the precedent when he created living creatures, surely he must be telling us to do the same!