God Doesn’t Do Adoption ~ Paul’s Version


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.


Advertisements

53 thoughts on “God Doesn’t Do Adoption ~ Paul’s Version

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

      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.

      Yes, this. Times eleventy billion.

      M.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

    • 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.

  5. 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.

      • I think clearly God’s plan is for the awful people in this world to be infertile and not have families. These people would clearly be awful parents and serve no purpose in society.

    • Though I’m EXTREMELY late to this post, I have a theory on why supposedly Christian churches, especially LDSFS, advocate adoption. Because they ignore all the “Biblical basis” for it and instead on pregnant women being “vessels for God’s will” to put babies with their “forever families.” It’s all a money-making thing for them. They just use the Bible and the fact that usually women who end up choosing adoption aren’t married (or have had affairs) and therefore are sinning or have sinned, to get themselves in the positions in which they find themselves.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  6. Pingback: links I love « Communities don't get built…

  7. 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?

    • 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.

  8. 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.

    • “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.”

      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?

      • I know this is waaaaaaaay late, but I stumbled across your post as I’m editing a post of mine that’ll be coming soon… but no, not really the same as the guardianship idea. The adopted but not biological son in the Roman model is being adopted so that the adoptive family can have an heir. So while the adopted son is still part of the birth family, the lineage and class and other aspects of the adoptive family are also taken on as they are being adopted (usually by a wealthy family) to carry on the wealth and line of the family. This doesn’t occur until that coming of age time, as you pointed out, though, so it certainly doesn’t serve as a parallel for anonymous infant adoption.

  9. 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.

    • Guardians = Legalized Babysitters

      Unless there is a blood relationship Guardian’s are not family. CAR is disowning the Adoptive family basically legally erasing them as if they never existed.

      • It is legally erasing them. Guardianship is not a recognized familial connection. It just says they were babysat by their Guardian’s until they turned 18. There’s no kinship or proof they are family because that is not the purpose of Guardianship. A Guardian is a caretaker/provider that’s all.

      • Hey. That’s pretty much what adoption does to natural families. It legally erases them as if they never existed. That whole, “as if born to” stuff.

        Once again, you come here – to the bloc of a natural parent who has legally been erased from her child’s life and cry foul? (I might also add this erasure extends into the eternities, thanks to the LDS theology of sealings. So not only have I been erased in the eyes of the law, but according to Mormon doctrine and theology, I’ve been erased by God, too.)

      • To me you are never erased. You always have your blood connection that is proof a relationship exists no matter what is said legally you are their mother. I don’t need a piece of paper to recognize that.

        On the other hand when there is no legal or blood proof then a familial relationship can never be proved. I believe the system needs to change where everyone has a two page birth certificate. The first page for genetic lineage with both biological parents and the second page where the legal parents are listed. The date of birth and birth city would not be able to be altered on the second page and nothing on the first page could ever be altered. The legal parents on the second page could only be changed if an adoption had taken place. The first page would never be sealed, ever.

      • It is NOT erasing them, just the observance of the mere legal fiction that they would be kin, and what would be wrong with that? Either adopters unselfishly want the best for the adoptee, and they should be happy with a revocation of that old adoption, which turned out not to serve the best interest of the child, or they are evil people who forced a change of identity on a non-consenting child, in which case the law should not serve their evil purposes. Of course, many adoptees are neither saintly nor fiendish, but as the adoption should be in the best interest of the child, it should no longer have any ground of justification if the adoption harms the adoptee, of course, judging whether it does is harder.

      • It’s legally erasing them as family. They would no longer be kin, no longer connected thus erasing any connection to them. If that’s what an adoptee wants to no longer be connected to the family that raised them, then so be it. They should have the right to do that. So don’t BS people and say it isn’t erasing the Adoptive Parents as family when that’s exactly what they are doing.

      • Of course, that is the whole point “erasing the fictional family ties”, but you said:
        “CAR is disowning the Adoptive family basically legally erasing them as if they never existed.” and that is something entirely different, you were talking about existence, while the truth is that all is erased is the family relation created by the adoption, but it would revive any pre-adoption family ties between adopted and adopter, which shows that in case of adoption by known relatives, adopted and adopter would stay related. The adopter is not legally erased as relative, just brought back to the pre-adoption state which could easily be cousin seven times removed or so.

      • The Adoptive Family if no biological tie exists is erased from having any relationship to the adoptee. They are no longer family. If there is a biological connection such as an Aunt or Uncle you are correct. If the adoptees intention is disown and remove any familial connection then by all means they should go the route you are suggesting. Many adoptees say they love their Adoptive Parents when they only do so out of obligation not as if they truly love their parents. I admire those who are honest and say they don’t love their parents and go to this measure to legally erase their Adoptive Family. But those who do who say they love them and legally erase them are lying.

      • No, one can love people without wanting them to take the places in your life of your real family members. Really,…”I love you” does not mean “I am fine with you pretending to have carried me in your womb.”, it is not even similar, of course, that can lead to “MOM!!! Stop pretending to be my MOTHER!”-situations, which is a bit confusing, but much better than a funeral.

      • Feel however you want. Just don’t say you aren’t legally erasing them when that’s exactly what you’re doing. They obviously aren’t family to you and you don’t want to have any connection to them.

  10. 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.

  11. How would you then live out the bible’s command (49 verses in 18 books) to defend the cause of the fatherless? I am caring for a boy who has not one person in his life who can take care of him…no one. How do you propose to care for the millions of orphans around the world?

    • That’s easy, Christina. What you are doing, in YOUR situation, is correct. If the boy you are caring for truly has NO living relatives able or willing to care for him, then you are fulfilling your duty as a Christian by caring for him. My only advice to you would be to make sure his natural identity, name, and heritage are preserved. Also, you may consider defending the cause of the fatherless whose original birth records have been sealed away from them. THAT would really be doing something to defend their cause! If you have not yet had the chance, check out The Adoptee Rights Coalition at http://www.adopteerightscoalition.com/ to get involved with defending the cause of the fatherless to have access to true and factual information to their family of origin.

      Now about the “millions” of orphans around the world: I assume you understand the oft quoted number of 143,000,000 orphans worldwide is terribly over inflated, right? In other countries, parents frequently use orphanages as a respite care of sorts when they are between work, etc. Most of those 143 million “orphans” have at least one living relative, who provided with the correct support, would LOVE to be able to care for their child (Madonna’s son is one of them, for example). An excellent way to defend the cause of the fatherless would be to funnel the $30-50K some international adoptions cost into family preservation and education efforts within those sending countries. Now, if a child from one of those countries TRULY has no living relative who can care for them, then it would be better for that child to be adopted, preferably by a family who lives in that same country or culture. International transracial adoption should be a last resort for a child in need. Helping a child who has already lost everything maintain strong and meaningful to their language, foods, country, holidays, rituals, customs, sights, smells, and sounds is defending the cause of the fatherless, even if it isn’t convenient for us white westerners.

  12. James 1:27 NKJV
    “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
    Obviously God expects us to do our christian duty and as this verse states, care for the orphans. CARE FOR THE ORPHANS! I believe this justifies adoption.

    Sincerely

    A young man with a wonderful adopted sister.

    • Hmmm…I read that scripture and I don’t see the justification for the separation of mothers and children anywhere. What I **do** see is the admonition for us, as Christians, to VISIT the widows and orphans IN THEIR NEED, which to me means doing all I can to help preserve their family unit, even if that family unit doesn’t fit into the idealized version we tend to worship in the church. What I **don’t** see anywhere in that scripture is the admonition to manufacture artificial orphans (as we do in domestic infant adoption here in the U.S.) to satisfy the desires of people who want to “build” their family via adoption.

      I am glad you have a wonderful adopted sister. I hope she was adopted via foster care, as those are child who are truly in need of a loving family.

      Sincerely, the mother of a wonderful daughter who was lost to the “artificial orphan care program” instituted by folks who think a lot like you.

    • Most children adopted via Domestic Infant Adoption are NOT orphans. They have mothers and families; but were brainwashed by the adoption industry to believe an older couple with a bigger house would be “better”. Not true.

      I will reiterate what Melynda said:

      “What I **don’t** see anywhere in that scripture is the admonition to manufacture artificial orphans (as we do in domestic infant adoption here in the U.S.) to satisfy the desires of people who want to “build” their family via adoption.”

      Exactly. Unless you are talking about children actually languishing in orphanages, you are not taking about a true orphan, but a “manufactured by the adoption industry” one…

  13. I think you are still missing the point. You are correct in the son placing, but at salvation we do not inherit “son placing”. The Bible is clear we receive the spirit of adoption. Adoption is explained in Romans 8: 23. “…we groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption to wit, the redemption of our bodies.”. Adoption happens when we receive our glorified body at the Rapture. That is Adoption. That is what I have been taught. Please tell me what you think. I could be wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s