Dear Ms. Feverfew -
My friend Cricket was recently attacked by a “Christian” PAP who proceeded to spout chapter and verse about how we are all adopted into God’s family, therefore adoption of infants is a good thing. (Actually, that doesn’t quite sum up the full extent of the nastiness of this PAP’s reasoning, but for here, it will do.)
Here’s what set me off this morning:
“We also look forward to spending eternaty [sic] worshiping and adoring Him with all of His adopted sons and daughters. “God sent forth his Son…….so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Galations 4:4-5 I’ve been adopted into God’s family and I hope that you will be too.” – Alicia, hopeful adoptive parent of her husband’s cousin’s dead but not-yet-buried wife’s baby. (Yes you read that right.)
Once again, I was left sputtering and stammering at my computer screen. I don’t get it – why on earth do “Christians” keep using those same couple of verses to justify adoption? So here’s my response to this, yet again. I realize I am not a theologian by any measure, but I am a thinker. Following is the scripture Alicia is referencing:
Galations 4:5 To redeem that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (KJV)
So yes. Paul says “adoption” right there in the Bible. He actually uses it a couple of times, but if one examines the text as written in the original Greek, one begins to understand that Paul didn’t mean “adoption” like the modern world means “adoption. ” His original Greek word huiothesia meant something else entirely.
The original Greek word in this scripture (and the others where Paul was translated as saying “adoption”) is huiothesia, derived from the huios (“a son”) and thesis (“a placing”), so literally the placing of/as a son. (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985).
The “placing as a son” imagery was something with which Paul and his readers of Galatia would have been entirely familiar (Mitchell, 1993; Zanker, 1988). Basically, it was a ceremony that occurred within the Roman culture in which a male child of a citizen achieved the status of manhood. Prior to the ceremony, a son was considered to have the status of a slave in his father’s house (The Story of Civilization, Vol. 3: Caesar and Christ, 1972, p. 57), even though he had the potential to inherit his father’s wealth. The “placing as a son” ceremony occurred around a boy’s teen years, when his father determined it was time for him to pass from being a child (and under the absolute power of his father) into adulthood.
In this public ceremony, the young man would remove the toga he wore as a boy and put on the toga virilis (toga of manhood). This ceremony marked his entry into full citizenship in the empire and the right to vote in the assembly. The toga virilis also allowed for visual identification between a natural-born Roman opposed to a naturalized citizen of Rome (foreign born people who then became Romans). Not only this, but after the “placing as a son” ceremony the son became fully legally vested with all of the rights, powers, and privileges of being a son and heir to his father’s possessions, wealth, and status. No longer was he viewed as a child – he was a fully participating member of his society and family. (Harrill, 2002; Fraschetti, 1997; “Roman Children,” ClassicsUnveiled.com). It should be noted that the one who was “placed as a son” was generally already the child of the father, thus it was not an adoption into the father’s household.
Paul’s original imagery of our huiothesia, literally “placing as a son” (as opposed to being adopted) within God’s kingdom profoundly affects our relationship with God. Adoption as applied to our relationship with God is problematic as it changes our fundamental status as God’s offspring. When a child is adopted into a family, he remains physically the same person. No change of name or falsification of birth records will ever eliminate the biological reality – he is still the offspring of his natural parents. That child’s DNA will always remain different, separate, and unrelated to his adoptive parents.
However, God has told us we are his literal offspring, created in his image, especially as we consider that He was the Father of Adam and Eve (Acts 17:28-29; Luke 3:38). As their descendants, our own DNA carries the fingerprints of divine origins. God even tells us that he is intimately involved with the physical creation of each one of us – He “knits” us together in our mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13-16).
Although we maintain this divine heritage from God, when we are born we essentially become slaves of the mortal, fallen world we are born into. However, this does not change our status as God’s offspring. We are still His children – we are just separated from His household because of sin. Fortunately, a loving Father provided a way for us to be reconciled to Him, to have those chains of slavery broken. That way is through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. The act of becoming a disciple and follower of Christ allows us to begin the process of what Paul called huiothesia – of becoming a full and participatory member of our Father’s household, with the full rights as His children. (If you are an endowed member of the church, ponder the meaning of huiothesia carefully in relation to putting an article of clothing which signifies a lesser position and putting on a new one that symbolizes the acceptance of a higher one, and then being welcomed back into the Father’s presence.)
So there it is. Again. God doesn’t do adoption. ‘Specially since we are already His children. He is into restoring things to their proper order and place in His household.
Really, some of these people should study history.
Much love,
Your mother who reads. A lot. And thinks about things.
P.S. Over on Cricket’s blog there are some amazing responses to Alicia’s letter to her. In particular, take time to read the one left by T. Laurel Sulfate Friday, March 5, 2010 9:35:00 PM EST , Jenni Friday, March 5, 2010 10:01:00 PM EST and Christina on behalf of Goog82 Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:14:00 PM EST
References:
Harrill, J. A. (2002). Coming of Age and Putting on Christ: The Toga Virilis Ceremony, Its Paraenesis, and Paul’s Interpretation of Baptism in Galatians. Novum Testamentum, 44, (3), p. 252-277.
Fraschetti, A. (1994). Roman Youth. Storia dei giovani, Vol. 1, Dall’antichita all’eta moderna. G. Levi & J.C. Schmited, Eds., trans. Naish, C. as A History of Young People in the West, vol. 1, Ancient and Medieval Rites of Passage. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p. 51-82.
Mitchell, S. (1993). Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vol 2. In The Rise of the Church, Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 3-10.
Vine, W. E., & Unger, M. F. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: With Topical Index. Thomas Nelson.
Zanker, P. (1988). The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Jerome Lectures 16; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, p. 215-23.
I love how these “Christian” PAP’s and AP’s try to justify ripping another family a part to create their family, then using the usual “god’s will/plan” argument, over and over again.
My child’s good “chrisitan” AP’s renegged on our “open adoption” agreement after only a few years, for NO reason, then ignore me and don’t even muster a “hello, nice to know you are still alive” after I found my child. I guess it was “god’s will” that they treated me like a sewer rat, huh?
These people are nothing but hypocrites and everyone knows it. They justify NOTHING except that they are selfish and think they are so entitled to all those good things that “god’s will” brings, while we mothers are, well, screwed…
Seems like I am not the only one on whom the irony is not lost, Stephanie. If you get a chance, make sure read some of the fantastic comments others have left over on Cricket’s blog http://peaceofcricket.blogspot.com/2010/03/oh-yes-please-save-my-soul.html. They range from the truly funny (T. Laurel Sulfate) to the truly profound and meaningful. And yes, the sense of entitlement some adoptive parents have is truly…well, appalling. There are no other words.
All I can say is that I am so grateful I believe in a God who is big enough and powerful enough to set all things right, even something as soul-searing as adoption. The hard part is waiting on his time frame!
M.
Ahhhh. This is an awesome post. Thanky ou I love it when people get into the nitty gritty of translation. Mind if I link this?
Thank you for your kind words, Weaver – and sure, link away.
M.
Fabulous, fabulous post, thank you so much. Mind if I also link? Great work!!
Of course you can link to it!
M.
Thank you for taking the time to break this issue down and provide an eloquent, truthful view of the REALITY of our status as sons and daughters of God. It is extremely painful and beyond difficult at times to hear the same old – same old rhetoric of God putting a giant stamp of approval on adoption (in general) because we are all adopted into His family. Of course those statements are always followed by citing Abraham, Samuel, Esther, and of course, Jesus as examples of this way of thinking. It hurts my head, and I have always felt so disheartened and defeated… wishing that people who share my faith could pause for a moment and see beyond what they NEED to see – what they WANT to see in adoption. I would love to link to this on my blog if you don’t mind. Thanks again.
Jenni – You are more than welcome to link to it! You might also appreciate the post “You Know What Chaps My Hide?” It is my response to the “Jesus was adopted” argument. As time allows, I am working on response to the adoption arguments based on the lives of Moses/Abraham/Samuel/Esther. Each one has its own nuanced reasoning and deserves its own response (especially Moses’ story, one of the ones I hear used most frequently, right up there with the Jesus was adopted argument).
“
”
Yes, this. Times eleventy billion.
M.
AAH! LOL I said Abraham and MEANT Moses. It is always Moses, isn’t it.
And I will definitely check out the other post. 
Thanks again.
Yes, Moses is one of the “infant-adoption-is-the-great-panacea-for-all-of-society’s-ills” crowds favorite examples. Sometimes I wonder though…did they not read the rest of the story?
You know, the parts where he returns to his people of origin and the parts where he then goes back to his adoptive family’s house, then proceeds to call down plagues on them, eventually resulting in the death of all of the first born in Egypt? Seems to me that the Moses story would be one that supporters of infant adoption would want to avoid like…well, the plague!!! After all, it doesn’t turn out to swell in the end for the adoptive family, what with all that death and destruction stuff.
It’s time for me to quit pontificating and get ready for church. Now if you can tell me how to survive three hours of church while sitting in less than comfortable pews and chairs, I will make you some serious delicious brownies that you don’t have to share with another person. Unless you want to.
M.
LOL. Yes, I hear you on the uncomfortable pews. We are actually watching our service broadcast on the web this morning, as both of my kids have nasty green colds. So, for a change, I am sitting on my couch with a good cup of coffee and the laptop, able to participate in the service while wearing my jammies. Gotta love technology.
Have a great day. Now that I know about your blog, I look forward to reading more.
As a fellow Christian and adoptee I am so thankful for voices like yours. Thank you!
Peach – And I am thankful for voices like yours. Truly, people such as yourself who find the courage within themselves to “write down the bones” of what it is like to live as you so aptly describe “neither here nor there” are simply amazing in my eyes. Reading your blog has helped me understand that maybe, possibly, hopefully my daughter will want to know me someday.
M.
Some Christians are so weird. I totally don’t get the Bible bashing quoting craziness. I thought some of those comments were just that…crazy.
So as to your post…God doesn’t do adoptions…agrees…but that is why I struggle. Because I belong to a church that loves them! That advocates for them and jus thinks they are so darn special!! I am trying to figure out why LDS FSA supports adoption so much. Is it truly from “the top”. Is adoption part of God’s plans for families? I read these blogs of real women who lost babies and real adults who lost mothers and I can’t imagine that this is Gods plan. But then why is it pushed so much in every church?
Shannan -
Good questions – they are the same ones I struggle with. I don’t understand why infant adoption instead of family preservation is pushed as the end-all, be-all, cure-all. As I look at scripture, I don’t see a basis for it.
Yes, I know Moses was adopted as an infant, but let’s not forget the reason his mother put him in that basket and sent him down the river was because his future adoptive father was killing Israelite babies! I think just about any mother would rather see her child raised by another person than have him cut to ribbons by Egyptian swords. And I hardly think the imagery of a future adoptive father killing off babies is one that the pro-adoption crowd would want to be using, but then again, I don’t understand a lot about that particular mindset…
Yes, Esther was raised by Mordecai who took her “for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). However, Mordecai was her cousin and both of her parents were dead. This renders this “adoption” a kinship “adoption” which was the practice in ancient Israel when there were no immediate family members to care for a child. Esther was not taken from her living mother and raised by strangers, she was raised by her cousin only after her parents had died. (Even then, there is some argument among theologians as to whether Esther was “adopted” because in the ancient Hebrew tradition, there was no such thing as “adoption” as we know it today.)
Samuel…then there was Samuel. That’s another one of the examples the “adoption is good because it’s in the Bible” folks like to use. This strikes me as extremely odd because of the pretext of the story. Like the Moses adoption story, I am often left wondering, “Why on earth would the pro-adoption people use this as an example????” You see, Samuel wasn’t born to a poor, single woman needing to be saved from herself and her obvious “sin.” He was born to a married Israelite woman, Hannah the wife of the faithful Elkanah. She had struggled with infertility her whole life and “she was in bitterness of soul” (1 Samuel 1: 10). Even her loving husband could not convince her not to be bitter when he said to her, “am not I better to thee than ten sons?” (1 Samuel 1:8). For many years, she wept and prayed to the Lord, so much so that one time Eli thought she was drunk and told her to stop drinking (1 Samuel 1:13-14)!!! One day as she “wept sore” she promised the Lord that if He would let her have a son, she would dedicate him to the Lord’s service (which in ancient Israel meant that he would go live with the current prophet to be raised in the confines of the temple).
So here we have Hannah, a woman who has been barren her whole life and she finally gets pregnant after making a bargain with God. With a son. She, being a faithful woman does as she has promised God and sends her only child that she has spent years longing and praying for to be raised by another person, but only after she has weaned him (which would have been around the time he was 3). So, in a nutshell, the example of Samuel is this: His mother is a married woman who can’t have kids. She spends so much time at the temple pleading and begging God for a child that the prophet thinks she is off her rocker. She promises God that if she can have a son, she will let the prophet Eli raise him. When she does get pregnant and has Samuel, even then she won’t let him go until he is about three years old. So do you see why even this example of “adoption” in the Bible is extremely problematic from a pro-infant adoption point of view?
Now tell me – how many women who have struggled with infertility their whole lifetime only to finally get pregnant would ever relinquish their only child to adoption, especially after nursing him for several years? How many husbands would have allowed the only child of his beloved wife to be raised by another man?
Clearly, there are some very limited and isolated instances in the Bible of “adoption.” However, it was certainly not the type of infant adoption we practice today as a church and society where fresh-from-the-womb babies are taken from their living mother’s arms to be given to people deemed more “worthy.” So if there isn’t a scriptural basis for it, then where does this push for infant adoption come from? The only answer I can come up with is a cultural one. I don’t know the answers but I am hoping that as I peel back the layers, lies, and half-truths, then maybe I can eventually uncover The Reason.
I don’t know if adoption is God’s plan to “build” families but I have a very hard time envisioning a loving Father inflicting this kind of suffering on two-thirds of the adoption equation. That doesn’t square with the God I have come to love and worship, but…like you I am left with questions.
M.
Beautifully said…as always.
Speaking of babies aren’t you like due any day now.
It feels like I should be due any day now but I actually have about 9 weeks or so. Not that I am counting.
OK, yes I am.
M.
You are amazing! Thank you for this and for pointing out Cricket had this on her blog! *mwuah*
Yeah – I am still just appalled at that PAP that Cricket pointed out to us. I mean – who thinks like that?????? Good night – no wonder so many Christians get a bad wrap! I have to give Cricket some serious props for confronting that lady on her extremely misguided ideas. I would take Cricket to lunch for that if I could.
M.
I was apalled by that blog seriously- I have to wonder who in the world tells people this sort of thing is ok and Godly!
Great post, thanks.
Thanks!
Wow, seriously amazing! You say everything I think and feel, only infinitely more eloquent than I could.
Oh Desi, there is more. I have been thinking a lot about the “Samuel was adopted” thing lately because I keep running across quotes from Hannah (Samuel’s mother) on the blogs of potential adoptive mothers. I keep wondering if they even read the rest of the story! Be watching for that post sometime in the near future…
M.
Pingback: links I love « Communities don't get built…
Thank you for this. Your take on the theology is the same as mine, and it definitely doesn’t support the notion that “God adopted us, so we should adopt someone else’s kids.”
It scare the heck out of me that this belief has become an adoption movement, though. How do you stop something that has a life of its own when the people who believe in it aren’t listening?
I don’t know, to be honest. I am trying to figure out how this became so ingrained in the Christian adoption landscape but am having a hard time sorting it out. It wasn’t always this way…what was the catalyst that brought this thinking about? And just like you asked, can anything really be done about it when the vast majority of people aren’t listening?
Much to think about as I lay here on complete bedrest for the next 22 days….
M.
Sorry for this late addition, but I studied Latin for eight years on a school which was already old in 1492, I hope you do not mind.
That said, if we are looking at Adoption in Ancient Rome, New Testament-era, Adoption rather like the one we know, did exist, with one vitally important difference, the adopted son, adopted daughters were not that common, got a new name which would still be referring to his “birth” family, and in spite of being legally a member of the adopting family, there was no cutting of “birth” family ties involved, it was rather like marriage a forming of ties between families. If we would take New Testament era Adoption as example how to deal with our (domestic) adoptions, all this birth certificate trouble would not exist, no pretending of adoptive parents to be naturals, or grandparents standing in for parents, the adoption loss would still be there to a degree, but I guess it would not hurt this way.
If we would have followed the Roman Adoption model, childless families would still adopt children, but that model would be COMPLETELY incompatible with “anonymous babies”, their name, and the full membership of the “birth” familly, would determine in part deal their value, they would be living away, but still stay part of the “birth” family too in a legal sense. The Roman Adoption could never have led to the Baby Scoop Era, so even the reading of Adoption as Adoption here is to a person familiar with the culture in no way a justification for the relinquishing of a mother’s only child as a baby.
Would this be sort of like the guardianship idea that others have proposed as an alternative to adoption as we practice it today in the US?
Well, answering this is sort of Science Fiction, and you have to take in mind that Adoption was , as far as we know, typically done by the happy few.
An adopted daughter in such a world would not have gone to her other family before she had at least a couple of siblings at home. It was a system by which the rich and powerful shared the children of their class, to strengthen families numerically in decline.
Lower classes might have done it as well on occassion, but no traces of that are found.
But to imagine this in the 19th century States. Consider two rich ranches, one home to Mr. Scott and his wife, childless and aging, though still not dead, the other home to the Slades, much younger Mr. Slade and his wife have 14 living children, (couple of twins), and a few of the oldest are reproducing already, but sly Mr. Slade, makes sure they got married in time. Mr. Scott has no heir, so one day he invites Mr. Slade and tells him, that though they are friends, and all, in the end there is a huge family party, the Slades get a large sum of money, and the two oldest sons of Mr. Slade move to Mr. Scott’s ranch, make Slade their Middle Name and Scott their last name and start to call him dad and act towards them as if they are their parents, so adopted as we know it, but to their natural parents they act just like their sons, who now live elsewhere on their own. This way the Scott Ranch and Name will continue, the newborn Scott babies (wives moved too of course) will have six grandparents and the Scotts and the Slades became one family. The idea that one can have just one father and one mother is alien to this concept, the rituals, religion and law would recognize this double sonship. Of course, this is too close to how the Ancient Romans did it, (taking on an adorable streetkid or so, as child did occur too), but unwanted babies died or ended up as slaves.
A Guardian can be many similar things depending on jurisdiction. The one I am most familiar with is a non-parent with parental authority, that could be for instance the grandfather or aunt of an orphan, not-parents, but as guardian allowed to do all all things with a child. Unlike adoption, guardianship creates no legal fiction about family relations and ends when the child becomes an adult, in an adoptionlike situation, suppose a very young (who may be large for her age and all, no horror scenes) girl gets pregnant and gives birth, rather than declaring the mother an adult, an adult, say mother’s mom, could be made guardian of the baby until the mother reaches adulthood. It is to be preferred over in-family adoption, in my opinion. Mom is legally grandmother to baby but as Guardian she has the power to be Acting-(as)-Mother. Or as Wiktionary formulates it: law: person legally responsible for a minor in loco parentis. One of the most famous fictional examples is Batman as Guardian Bruce Wayne to his ward Dick Grayson. Bruce Wayne acts like a parent, a father, to his ward but he does not claim to be his father in any way, he just acts like a father should do and has been given the right to do so, but their, in their case non-existent, family relation is not changed by it at all. A totally different concept.
That said, I have read a description in proposal for a change in adoption legislation, don’t ask me what jurisdiction, in which the two basic concepts of Adoption were compared: One was Absolute (or (Anglo-)American) Adoption, in which Adoption creates new legal relationships AND destroys the previously existing ones, the other was Relative (or Roman-concept) Adoption in which new legal relationships are formed and pre-existing ones are not affected.
Of course, that made me think that maybe all adult adoptees should get a C.A.R-choice,
Cancel Adoption, become an unadopted person, making the adoptive parents retro-actively guardians with full restoration of the recognition of the original family relations.
A-Adoption, change nothing.
R-Adoption, make both original and adoption-generated family relations valid.
But that is rather futile speculation, if one sees how much trouble even getting a C-A choice is.
Wonderful post, I love TRUTH and share with you the same view points which I don’t believe are mere view points but are complete TRUTH.
Another thing I have pondered that I did not see mentioned here, is how Satan is the father of lies who also can appear as an Angel of light. I truly believe Satan is behind infant adoptions as they are practiced today and many have fallen under his spell of deceit.
Our father created the natural order as it is, Satan is the one who perverts God’s natural order. God does not need infant adoption, Satan and man are who need it.
What get’s me is reading posts or comments of these Christian Papa’s or Ap’s believing and claiming their adoption was planned and ordained by the Lord, that the natural mother was just a vehicle the Lord used to prove the Pap or Ap’s with a baby.
There was a plan already in place( before the adoption) however it was perverted and the Lord’s creation and natural order was interfered with by man and of course Satan, since there is free will it has been allowed to happen.
God our father can work good from all of this, ,just take a look around he is already shining his TRUTH i.e. separation damage, wound to the psyche, child trafficking, DNA, access to training manuals used by adoption professionals on how to pretty much brain wash and coerce a young mother to come to a decision to relinquish, which isn’t really her decision when there is brainwash which is very real that exists.
The TRUTH is there and is being exposed, this is Satan’s playground, he is the destroyer, perverter (sp), deceiver and father of LIES.
I have also heard pap’s or Ap’s defend their stance by saying we put much prayer into adopting and our prayer was answered we know it is the will and plan of God. This may be true for true orphans as we are called to care for them as well as the fatherless and the widowed in their need.
It’s not hard to see where scripture has been twisted and perverted, remember Satan also knows the word of God and believes in God and can appear as an Angel of light. I truly believe that is who is behind this infant adoption industry as it is practiced and has been practiced as it is for sometime now. We should know anything that is not in line with God’s design and natural order of creation, things that are not clear and lining up with truth his word, with justice and LOVE, God loves all of his children, we should know who is behind this.
We need to keep praying for the bigger picture and keep praying the light of Truth be shined on infant adoption, pray the people who are being deceived that the lord give them his eyes to see the truth.
Sorry this was lengthy and I know it’s an older post, just wanted to share and add more to the TRUTH. Thank you for what it is your are doing here and I thank God as it does appear he is using you to shine the light on TRUTH as a matter of fact if I remember my scripture well I believe we are called to shine light on TRUTH. Thank you so much for this opportunity to contribute. God bless you girl.
Jenny – Thank you for your kind words about my efforts here on this blog. I, too, have thought about what role Satan, the Father of All Lies, has had in all of this (Georgia Tann, any one!!!!????) and the history of the modern adoption culture. I have been working on a letter along those lines so be watching for it in the future.
M.