What do the following characters have in common? Luke Skywalker… Harry Potter… Tarzan… Mowgli… Superman… Batman… Jane Eyre… Bambi… Oliver Twist… Buddy the Elf… Kung Fu Panda… Anne of Green Gables… Moses….
Answer: They’re all—in various senses of the word—adopted.
Granted, some of these adoptive situations worked out better than others, and it’s admittedly better to be taken in by Pharaoh’s daughter than it is to be raised by wolves, or so I would imagine. But my point is that many of our culture’s best stories feature main characters who find themselves orphaned and in need of the ultimate act of grace: Adoption. We find beauty in that image, and we can’t help but write about it again and again.
It might be surprising to many to discover that a “family-centric” worldview such as Bill Gothard’s would have anything against the idea of adoption, but Gothard’s writings and teachings are decidedly against the practice. Though never stating outright in print that adoption is wrong for a Christian couple, Gothard’s lectures—and personal counsel to many families—demonstrate his belief that the benefits are not worth the risks. Any Advanced Training Institute (ATI) family considering adoption is asked to first consult the ATI staff. Gothard’s CARE Booklet on the topic offers so many warnings and case studies of adoptive failure that its cumulative effect is most certainly to dissuade prospective parents from considering this option. Although he does acknowledge Moses and Esther as instances of biblical adoptions in Scripture, he believes that adoption is a cultural, not a biblical, convention: “It is significant that our modern concept of adoption in unknown to the Law which God gave to Israel.”[1]
Adopting a child is certainly a choice to be made soberly and in full view of the unique responsibilities and challenges it entails. But it is also a decision to be made out of faith, not fear. The concept Gothard uses to cast the most doubt and fear on the practice is the concept of ‘generational sin.’ For those who grew up in ATI, the diagrams are familiar.[2] Gothard proof-texts the idea that we are connected to the sins of our ancestors by referring to an obscure text in Hebrews: “One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.” (Hebrews 7:9-10)
On the surface, the passage suggests that Levi was physically involved in the actions and decisions of his great-grandfather Abraham. Gothard then uses this model to interpret several biblical examples of amplified inherited sin: Abraham’s lying passed down to Isaac and Jacob, or Hagar’s resentment passed down to Esau. This argument appears whenever Gothard addresses the topic of generational sin, but what does it have to do with adoption? Let me illustrate.
My 5-year-old son has discovered the world of Legos, and our local Lego store has become a regular stop on our father-son rounds. So as not to leave the store empty-handed or empty-walleted, we’ve often settled for purchasing an inexpensive ‘Minifigure.’ The Minifigures are uniquely-created Lego people wrapped in a sealed ‘mystery bag’ so that you don’t know which figure you’ve purchased until after the sale. You might get a fireman, or you might get Frankenstein.
I see this as a parallel to Gothard’s adoption fears. When we adopt a child from another ‘spiritual ancestry,’ what are we bringing home? Will our child have the predisposition of a fireman or a Frankenstein, a hero or a monster? Adoption is a genetic ‘mystery bag’; because we don’t know the sin patterns of their parents, we can’t properly acknowledge their ancestral sins and be free of them. Gothard tells potential adopting parents to try to research the potential specific sins of the biological parents so as to confess them and negate their consequences.[3] This equates to some animistic form of binding ancestral demons, and lacks any biblical merit.
Hebrews 7:9-10 is not a passage about generational sin at all, but about the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ, and using it as the seminal text for the concept of sin-genetics is asking it to support weight it was never meant to bear.[4] The Bible does speak of a kind of generational sin we bear; the doctrine of ‘original sin’ teaches that we were all ‘in Adam’ when he and Eve committed the world’s first sin. But is this to be understood as being physically soul-present in the Garden, or as being fully represented in the act? Romans 5 brings clarity, paralleling the situation to that of Christ, who acts as a ‘second Adam’ and representative of a new and forgiven humanity. Our being ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ’ are not true in a genetic sense (Jesus didn’t pass on his DNA, unless you’re a DaVinci Code devotee…), but in a representative sense.
So in relation to hereditary sin, it is Adam who represents us. What does this mean for adoption? It means that I have inherited a fallen nature from the first Adam, not a specific sin of lust or pride or rebellion from my great-great-grandfather. An adopted child and an adoptive family both inherit the same thing; I don’t have some lesser propensity to sin because I come from ‘better stock.’ This is not to negate the real issues involved in many adoptive situations, such as Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) or other issues that stem from parental abuse or orphanage life. But these are clinical issues, not generational strongholds of rebellion.
In other words, all of us have the capacity to be the hero or the Frankenstein. And in fact we see in ourselves a little of both, sinner and saint. The adoptive children in our church are just as in need of the transforming power of Christ as the biological children. The biological parents of an orphaned child stand just as much in need of a Savior as the adoptive parents. And the cure for our guilt in the first Adam is the grace of the second Adam (Christ).
If this is the situation, then we all need adoption, a rescue from our spiritual orphanages to the table of the King. Galatians 4:3-7 says that “…we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.” This is the cosmic adoption that all earthly adoptions picture in miniature: the rescue of the helpless to the status of sonship. Adoption pictures the heart of God.
The end of Gothard’s booklet on adoption is haunting. Two case studies tell stories of people who determined after the adoptive process that they had made a mistake, and needed to ‘send back’ the child. Both stories suggest that God blessed these parents for their decisions (financial windfalls, domestic harmony, and a bonus biological child are cited as evidences of God blessing their abandonment of the trouble-child). These two cases are not unique in the ATI culture. The adult children of IBLP/ATI families can tell similar stories:
- An adopted child was rejected as a ‘problem child’ at age 3 and re-adopted to another family, only to be continually threatened with repeat abandonment, shuffled off to family friends, and told by her parents, ‘No one is willing to take you in.’
- A family whose adoptive relationship with their pre-teen son was ‘not working out,’ was personally counseled by Gothard to send the child away permanently.
Not only do these stories perplexingly erode Gothard’s cryptic teaching on the necessity of making and keeping vows, but they erode the picture of unconditionality that gospel sonship depicts. All parenting is hard work, especially adoptive parenting, and I don’t mean to suggest that there aren’t times when parents feel like giving up, or are required to get help outside the home for establishing peace or safety. But adoption is meant to establish a child’s safe fixed point, to say ‘you belong here’ without suspicions, conditions, or retractions. This is the adoption that is ours in Christ: it’s hard to imagine a more lavish picture of His amazing grace.
Some helpful info on adoption can be found at:
Hope For Orphans
Shaohannah’s Hope: A Movement to Care for Orphans
Many also recommend the book Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches by Russell D. Moore.
[1] Basic Care Bulletin 5: “How to Make Wise Decisions on Adoption,” p. 5.
[2] This teaching, and its corresponding diagrams, can be found in Basic Care Bulletin 5, pp, 31ff, as well as Anger Resolution Seminar Session 8: Acknowledging Inherited Weaknesses, and other publications.
[3] Bill Gothard, Ten Reasons Why Adopted Children Tend to Have More Conflicts, pp. 1-2. 11.
[4] Regarding the verse, Leon Morris says that the Greek phrase ‘One might even say,’ only found in this one instance in the New Testament, “serves to introduce a statement which may startle a reader, and which requires to be guarded from misinterpretation” (Morris, EBC, p. 65) and Peter O’Brien notes that the expression could be used “when presenting a thought that goes strictly beyond the evidence, but is true in some sense.” (O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, Pillar New Testament Commentary, p. 254. In other words, the verse is tangential. The authorial intent was not to build a theology of the pathways of generational sin.
I find it very telling that BG looked to the absence of adoption in the OT law to justify his stance when the NT uses adoption as a picture of salvation. For a man who likes analogies so well, he completely misses the beautiful one Scripture gives us of the redemptive nature of adoption.
This is shocking. And now that you write about it, I do recall reading these things in ATI materials. As the sister of three adopted siblings, I am deeply grieved at such a selfish, unbiblical, orphan-rejecting teaching. Thank goodness my family left ATI before my siblings were old enough to understand where they stood in the ATI worldview.
What a shame that Gothard misses out on Paul's assessment of adoption - In Christ, we are ALL adopted!! What about the OT command to care for the orphan and fatherless? This is a perfect example of how someone can take a few verses out of context, twist them to fit their agenda, and then completely miss the big picture of God's redemptive work that runs throughout the whole narrative of the Bible.
Also...so, adoptive children may cause some conflict in families because of the hurt and neglect they have experienced in their young lives. Are Christians to run from conflict? Are they to abandon those who disrupt the peace and comfort of their little families? Where is the sacrificial, selfless love of Jesus in that? Once again, this teaching reveals the lack of grace in Bill Gothard's teachings.
For a gospel-centred of adoption, I highly recommend this book by Russell Moore: http://www.amazon.com/Adopted-Life-Priority-Adoption-Christian/dp/1581349114.
totally, yes we are all adopted children !!! what gives him the right to reject a child who's being given a chance! argh! what a selfish man.
Thank you Kevin for this article! To me this highlights perfectly the complete grace vacuum that exists in Gothard's teachings and consequently, in the entire ATI system. It also reminds me why I was not allowed to leave the MTC briefly to interpret for some friends who were adopting - even when the request was made by my parents.
Gothard's teachings and manipulations of parents against the "least of these" is *horrible*.
This is one of several subjects where I want to ask the well-meaning people who still support Gothard, "How badly does he have to get it wrong before you will quit supporting teaching that is diametrically opposed to Scripture (not to mention common decency)?"
Prov 31:8-9
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.
"This is one of several subjects where I want to ask the well-meaning people who still support Gothard, "How badly does he have to get it wrong before you will quit supporting teaching that is diametrically opposed to Scripture (not to mention common decency)?"
Totally agree with you here.
Fully agree, Matthew. A lot of the things we address on this site might be dismissed by some loyal ATI-ers as nit-picky or peripheral, but there are several that are definite 'deal-breakers' for me, and this issue is certainly one of them.
There's a song that reminds me of the kind of unconditional love that adopted children (and all of us) so desperately need: "What Love Really Means" by JJ Heller. I can't help but cry whenever I hear this song come on the radio:
"He cries in the corner where nobody sees
He’s the kid with the story no one would believe.
He prays every night, “Dear God won’t you please
Could you send someone here who will love me?”
Who will love me for me?
Not for what I have done or what I will become;
Who will love me for me?
‘Cause nobody has shown me what love
What love really means..."
If you haven't heard this song, click here for the link to JJ Heller's official Music Video on YouTube.
Beverly, I know this is an old article but I just wanted to say thanks for the link to JJ Heller's music. I had never even heard of her but her & her husband are great. Thanks for the heads up on a great artist. I have just listened to all her songs on youTube.
Thanks Again,
Kim
Thank you so much for this great article. I am a mom to 4 adopted children, sister to 2 adopted brothers, director of an adoption agency, and former ATI mom. We felt like we were being rebellious to BG 16 years ago when we adopted our first child, but God so fully led us that we did it anyway (without prior approval). In looking back we can see the immense blessings in our whole family as explained in Isaiah 58, when you take the homeless poor into your home. Tied in with this is the fasting that BG promotes, but Isaiah 58 clearly explains that the fasting God blesses is fasting of our comforts by sharing our lives and possessions with the homeless poor.
I would love to get in touch with you and "pick your brain", so to speak...as my husband and I are interested in pursuing adoption and would love to know the best way to get the process started quickly.
Thanks for sharing Gothard's views on adoption.
I never really understood his views against adoption as they never made sense to me. His whole ministry is built around an incorrect view of God. One of fear. Do this or don't do this because God will....... I remember his very negative comments about adoption and have read the basic care bulletin that you mentioned in the story. Ludicrous! I have to wonder how many people decided not to adopt a child because of his fear tactics. And how many ministries today won't promote adoption because of his incorrect teachings?
Thankfully, there is actually quite a healthy movement in the church in general these days promoting adoption. To pull an example at nearly random, here's a big conference coming up in Chicago: http://chicagoadoption.org/ (Disclosure, my church is one of the ones sponsoring it. This is intended as an illustration rather than a promotion, although if you're in the neighborhood on Nov. 12...)
Apparently, Gothard's deviant teachings don't have much traction outside of his circles, presumably because lots of Christians have actually, you know, read the Bible and seen that adoption is one of the primary illustrations of God's love.
"...you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" (Romans 8:15b).
BG's attitude and beliefs are tantamount to divorce. He himself advises walking on water for a marriage, why not for a child? this is HORRENDOUS. If you made a commitment to a child, and it's not working, you work it out!!! just like a marriage. where is the love in his rejection?! DAMAGE DAMAGE DAMAGE. it just is hanging around him.
That's a good point. To the child (adopted or otherwise), Gothard says that even if you are being beaten to the point of being physically wounded, you must submit to it. Any action you take to push back against abuse WILL be construed as rebellion, and you will be forced to "repent." But to the parent, if an adopted child is holding you back, just get rid of the child. It's extreme on both sides. Both extremes fail to acknowledge the soul of the child.
Matthew: On what do you base the statement that Bill tells children to allow themselves to be physically abused? Not talking about controlled, limited, sparse spankings, right?
I vigorously reject that and do not know of any family in our circle of ATI friends that wouldn't. I have learned that not every ATI family around the country functions the way the families we have been blessed with knowing do . . . but I have certainly never heard such a statement from Bill. I haven't heard everything that he has said, so that is a serious question.
I HAVE heard him offer dire warnings about the consequences of fits of anger. One example involved an ATI Dad who came in on his daughter and a neighbor fellow . . . . undressed . . . he grabbed a stick and started whacking the fellow's legs. Fellow sued, Dad in jail. The point was aimed at Dads, not daughters.
Child and spousal abuse is the jurisdiction of the government, whose job it is to "punish evildoers".
I'm not Matthew, but we speak as former students who know what the teachings say to a child and student.
I will say that when I worked at CI's we were told that if a child told us about being abused we were not to contact any authorities outside of the CI.
But as to ATI families abusing.....When I counted out my close friends in ATI and thought of how many had been abused, I think it came to close ot half of them had been. Now, maybe you and I have different standards of abuse, but I would consider myself abusing my child if I struck them 20 times or 100 times (yes, I have ATI friends who've endured that. Punching and choking a child would definitely be abusive.
And, yes, in a system that tells children that their parents are the voice of God to them, the child definitely feels like they can't do anything about it. BG doesn't have to say, "Kids, let your parents abuse you." He says, "God will direct you through your parents, even if they are ungodly. Suffering is good." Put those together in the mind of a 12 year old and tell me what you get.
Ileata: That stinks, to whatever extent that is going on. Angy parents will tell their children that they must obey because God told them to . . . I know I have.
God DOES tell children to obey their parents, but angry reactions are also condemned by the same God, never justified. "For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." (James 1:20) "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." (Coloss 3:21)
We parents have a double standard of responsibility to that of our children.
Alfred, Izek's testimony (which I believe by this time you must have read) clearly state where Izek informed BG of the awful abuse done to him and his siblings, and BG barely even acknowledged it, and instead told him that he needed to repent of his pride, submit to authority, stop being rebellious. etc... There are other similar stories as well.. So while BG may never have actually advised anyone to beat the living daylights out of their kid, he certainly did nothing to stop the cases he did know about, and excused situations away. My assumption is that he would have to refute his teachings on authority and admit they are wrong, in order to properly deal with these evil situations. Tells you alot about his heart, really. (This opinion comes from multiple testimonies I have read on this site.)
Alfred I know parents who practice Gothard's IBLP philosophy. This includes threatening their children with death by God if they disobey them. Giving false testimony against other believers. Criticizing and mocking other believers because they don't measure up to their standards. Sanctimonious attitudes based on appearance. Should I go on? By their fruits ye will know them!!
“Fools rush in” . . . so . . . here goes.
1) Whatever the stance on adoption by IBLP a decade or more ago, I have seen or heard nothing on it for a long time. Maybe there was a big reaction. Several of the ATI families we are close to have adopted children and they were never given any grief, even remotely. Some adopted after they had been in ATI for decades and their own kids were almost out of the house.
2) Bill has cared for orphans vigorously in various settings, including the “South Campus” at Indianapolis, working with orphans from a number of countries. He definitely loves the fatherless.
3) A number of tragedies with adopted children have underscored the point that this is not a panacea. His concerns include the breakdown of natural familial barriers to sexual experimentation and exploitation (your link, Kevin, from one of the stories of abuse brought me over here.)
4) Whatever one believes, one would expect that the OT laws represent God-ordained practical “best practices” on many topics. It cannot be ignored that the One who is the “Father to the Fatherless” omitted any provision for adoption of children in the law. Other than that the extended family was responsible to step up and see to it that it was done. Another exception is that of adult servants becoming virtual members of families, such as Abraham’s servant (also Prov. 17:2).
5) It must also be noted that NT adoption examples – an expression of grace – is specifically in reference to adults . . . Ben Hur style. When the analogy switches to spiritual babyhood, we are “born” into His family, not adopted.
6) Whatever you think of Bill, you must know that his entire ministry sprang out of working with the toughest of individual and family problems. When it comes to a small number of extreme cases, the story of Ishmael cannot be ignored. The best move for that young man was to report directly to God rather than the family structure.
I have seen adoptions really work well. It is my opinion that such situations do work when it is 100% ministry – “open adoption” - and 0% enhancing me and my status and my heritage. An adopted child never ceases to be part of some other family . . . and if there is any truth to blessings and trouble being specifically “visited” on children and grandchildren then it would be foolish to ignore that.
Alfred, I'll try to give some thorough thought to your points and respond later, but in short for now, let me address #2. There's no doubt that Gothard's ministry focuses on care for orphans... my wife worked with this ministry in Russia. But there is a difference here, the difference between helping needy children as a target ministry and investing in children long-term incarnationally, inviting them into our families as our own. It's the difference between ministering at a homeless shelter and bringing the homeless regularly to your own dining room table.
I want to understand your points #4, 5, and 6 better... are you suggesting that the Bible is silent on—or speaks against—adoption? Trying to follow your logic. My argument in the article is that, as a picture of God's adoption of us as sons and daughters, 'earthly adoptions' are fully in keeping with the character of God. I don't understand your point in #5... do you believe we are born into God's family or adopted into it? Thanks for clarifying...
One more point. I would recommend the CARE booklet footnoted above to see Gothard's teaching on this. In it, he does not outrightly say adopting is against God's will, but read the booklet and consider the cumulative effect; his cautions make it clear (mostly rooted in the 'sins of the father' concept I address in the article). As for more overt teachings on the matter, they have happened regularly in numerous related stories of Gothard's counseling on the practice. These stories span a large period of time and there has been no apparent change in his stance or retraction on his statements. I would be relieved to hear otherwise...
I'll address #3 too... If I understand you right, you're suggesting that other stories on the site (like the one we both read yesterday) demonstrate that sometimes adoptions just don't work out. In those cases, are you suggesting that 'Ishmael' be invoked and the adopted kid removed from the home? I ask because this is exactly what Gothard suggests at the end of the CARE booklet... and the testimonies even suggest that God blessed this decision to abandon the adopted child.
In fact, you SEEM to be suggesting that in that particular story, the dysfunction was brought on by the adoption (which eroded the barriers of healthy family dynamics and opened the door to exploitation, etc.). I truly hope you're not suggesting that adoption brought these problems into the home in the story in question... that puts the blame on the victim, something the father in question did as well—which I see as the most heinous part of that story. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you; you're not suggesting that of the adopted child brought this into the family, are you?
Glad you've seen many adoptions work out well in your circles. I have too, and it's why I feel strongly about this...
Kevin: Thanks for your respectful response - I appreciate it very much.
#3: I guess the question is how one resolves the Lord’s actions with regard to Ishmael and the problems that situation caused that were really – fundamentally – not his fault. If one can explain if and how the action of sending brokenhearted Ishmael – flesh and blood - away forever was just and gracious, then it would be appropriate to talk to whether it ever is just and kind to send an adoptive child away.
Back to #2: True religion is caring for orphans and widows, James tells us. So we better do it. The biggest issue is how. To use your analogy, why send the homeless back to the shelter at night and not invite them to sleep at your house? The answer is that – practically - the family will likely suffer harm. Many – no most - “homeless” individuals in this country are packing major personal problems that represent a risk to those in close proximity – diseases, theft, abuse, death. Elizabeth Smart spent years enslaved to a pervert who got to know her because her Dad was kind to a homeless man. If you can tell me how a Christian can be righteous, self-sacrificially Christ-like in not inviting the homeless to live with them – or live in their church - leaving them in institutions instead, then I can speak to why some families would choose to not adopt or not adopt a lot (I know some personally that have as many or more adopted children than natural).
The Bible is unusually silent on adoption, given the modern day focus on it. Find me a single Scripture to guide the Jews on adoption through their multiple thousand year run as “God’s People”. Bottom line was that family always stepped up. And I am puzzled by your question: Both birth and adoption are incomplete analogies to represent our status change through salvation. Adoption of babies, adoption of children is simply nowhere represented in Scripture – I can’t even think of an example in the OT where the neighbor kid comes to live with a family.
I have the Basic Care booklet, sitting on my shelf. Not far from “A Matter of Basic Principles”.
?? We don't minister to people the way they need, if it might cost us something, or if we might get hurt in the process?
That's not incarnational. I think there has to be a balance, sure, you must protect the family you've already got, but there are reasons to truly meet a person's needs where they are, as well.
The Bible is actually not silent on adoption. While there is no express command for everyone to adopt, the NT actually does talk about it a lot by way of analogy.
Children need the love of a family. That is why adoption is such a powerful way to meet that need. "Ministering" to them in other ways, simply cannot fill this void.
And, incarnational ministry requires some risk-taking. Maybe calculated and pre-determined at times, but it's part of the package deal.
Alfred, let me try to address what I understand your main thought to be here. My use of the homeless-ministry analogy was very intentional. It's the difference between ministry at arm's length and ministry that entails significant risk and sacrifice. Is there risk involved in bringing the homeless man home? Absolutely; I'm not arguing otherwise. But that's what makes it so beautiful when, for instance, a friend of mine in California decides to start a clothing closet for the homeless based out of his garage. Risk, but incarnational ministry is risk. Ask any missionary.
So to bring it back to adoption, there is risk involved, to be sure. I have a good friend who has adopted three Chinese girls, one with significant special needs (she is blind). They have invited a lot of stress and challenge into their home, dealing with Reactive Attachment Disorder with their second child, surgeries to address the disabilities of their third child, etc. Insurance won't cover the most recent specialist surgery (which is tomorrow... would certainly appreciate your prayers). Lots of sacrifice, to be sure. But would you believe they're pursuing a fourth adoption, of a Chinese girl with a heart condition? That's a high calling.
And the reason it's laudable, I would argue, is that is so beautifully pictures the character of God 'For God so loved... that he GAVE.' You suggest that the Bible is silent on adoption. I disagree (I'll get to that in a sec) but for the sake of argument, let's say that's true. The BIble is also silent on choosing a career, or on socialized medicine, or on counseling eating disorders. Does this mean the Bible has no wisdom on the matter? Or are we to try to get answers to these questions by considering the character of Christ and trying to live in that? And if so, we see that God is a God who brings his people into his family not by birth, but by adoption. It's a cool image to consider, and becomes a viable means of addressing the brokenness of the world... the rescue of four little Chinese girls, for instance.
But I would say that while the Bible lacks a 'thou shalt always adopt' command, it is anything but silent on the matter. Adopted characters in the Bible, in one sense or another, include Moses, Samuel, Esther, Ruth (as an adult), Mephibosheth, and I would argue Jesus (Joseph is not the birth parent!). Please don't split hairs on each individual example; I understand that each situation is different and it's not my point to try to make an ironclad case simply from narrative evidence, but look at the cumulative picture. It means that when the New Testament starts using the language of 'adoption' to picture our salvation, the original audience fully understood the concept... because it was biblical.
You say that in Israel, "the family always stepped up." So, what do we do today when the family DOESN'T step up? If not adoption, then what solution do you propose?
As Christians we are not all under a moral imperative to adopt... but it is a calling for some (and a high one at that). When people choose adoption, they are saying, you who were not my people are now my people (to quote Hosea). There are no 'send backs' and there should be no unequal treatment. But unfortunately, the Care Booklet I referenced treats the adopted child with great suspicion and a lesser claim to the family. So grateful that God does not treat us this way when he makes a place for us at the table.
Some summary comments.
1) I remember a bloody discussion on the “Quiverfull Forum” many years ago. One articulate adversary was a godly wife who was adopted as a child and claimed adoption carried with it God’s unmitigated blessing, that she was complete and fulfilled as a member of a great family. She and her husband approached me months later – after the dust had settled – to ask my forgiveness. She had found her birth parents and completely reversed her perspective on what was good, what was God’s best for a fatherless child.
2) I am all for sacrificial ministry – and to the extent that adoption is “fostering”, the caring for of the fatherless, it falls in that category.
3) The problems associated with adoption are real. Make an informed consent, “Count the Cost” like a missionary (good analogy). But here, I think, is the Gothard crux: The family comes first above any ministry. “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8). Win the world and lose your family = failure. I can’t speak for others, but I am completely clear that a missionary must abandon the mission field if his family is in disarray. If one has foster children, one sends those away when the family challenges are great, as my wife’s family did when her mother had major medical problems. That was far from heartless – but it did represent the pecking order of priority.
4) Many people also are choosing adoption over natural children. Because of the completely discredited “Population Explosion” mythology, for example. Mother Earth and all. I think that when another god comes into play, the Lord will corrupt it. That is where I might expect adoptive situations to carry some of the Lord’s unhappiness. And when parents refuse – like Abraham – to wait on the One who opens and closes wombs and decide, instead, on a “short cut”. That is not “sacrificial ministry” – that is me and my happiness. There is a chasm of difference.
5) I don’t understand the statement that we are not “born again”, only adopted. Perhaps that can be explained.
6) The Greek word "Huiothesia" literally means “placing as a son”. Best familiar example of meaning in Bible times is found in the “Ben Hur” story, when Judah Ben Hur is given standing as a son of the centurion. It is the act of granting freedom and rights to a person previously enslaved, and is applied to our deliverance from the bondage to the law. While this is a great picture it literally, emphatically, has nothing to do with raising a child that is not your own. It has to do with rights and freedom, not love and nurturing.
AND . . . . Romans 8:23 appears to state that we are still waiting for that adoption, the deliverance from the curse of the law. "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father . . . we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:15, 23) Thus it is quite clear that this has nothing to do with the “new birth” which we do, in fact, now possess.
7) Let me also state that what “Rebekah” in the associated abuse story experienced was in no way her fault. The stupidity of her “father” blaming her, and then – God forbid – abusing her as “punishment”?! The family has an incredible amount to answer to Almighty God for. Whatever the course we are in, we give it to Jesus and make it work. I do not read the Basic Care comments to mean all adoptions require a separation and if it did, would not support that.
I hope the theologians in the group will answer you. But my immediate red flags were:
2) Adoption is not foster care.
3) You do care for your family first, but the family is not an idol kept in a museum so that they can always be perfectly protected. If you have adopted children, they ARE your family.
4) Some people choose adoption over biological children, because the needs of children already here are greater than the needs of potential, unconceived children.
Alfred, I'm realizing that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, and I think this is going to be my last word on the subject because I feel like your objections are a bit of a moving target... it's hard for me to determine what your real issue with adoption is. I'll briefly say two things:
Adoption in Romans is listed as a future event. But our glorification, a few verses later, is listed as a past event (8:30). And our salvation is listed in scripture as both past (Eph. 2:5, 8), present (1 Cor. 1:18, 15:2, etc.), and future (Rom. 13:11, 1 Cor. 5:5, etc.). Does this mean I have not received my salvation yet? Of course not. Don't try to make theology out of the tenses. Adoption is a past event (Rom. 8:15) with continual consequences and greater fulfillment (Rom. 8:23).
But more than that, Alfred, I gather that you still have big misgivings about adoption in general, and, if I understand you right, would counsel a barren couple to wait it out for the Lord's timing rather than consider adoption. In my opinion, this is a highly insensitive thing to say to infertile couples (especially as a man whom I see from your website has a very full quiver of natural-born children). And your suggestion that their desire to start a family is about 'me and my happiness' and that adoption is an unsanctioned 'short-cut'... honestly I have no words for that.
Adoption is an ADDITION to the family, not an INTRUSION on it, and once the decision is made, it goes against the whole concept to suggest that 'for the sake of the family' that decision can be undone. I've heard this argument before; you're stating exactly the concerns of the Care Booklet. It's the party line; I just don't buy it.
1) Perhaps your point, Kevin, was not to dismiss the notion that we are born into God’s family. The Scriptures in the NT on adoption remain a primary basis for insisting that this is a central purpose of God, for Christians to adopt. My point remains that this Biblical analogy applies to adult slaves, not children.
2) I accept that adoption is a real ministry for some people. I have seen it, have seen it work. So, no, I would not counsel others to never consider it.
3) You used the word “start a family” and condemned me for suggesting that as a bad motive. I wonder if you see the collision of motives here. We all agree that “self-sacrificing ministry” in caring for the needy is blessed of God. Whether it is, on the other hand, His will to “start a family” with a child He gave to another family is worth asking. There it is. THAT is what concerns me.
4) A couple that is happy to “foster” has pure motives. “Fostering” is genuine self-sacrifice, as there are no claims on the children served, and they may leave at any time, notably to be reunited to their natural family. The complete change of heart of the wife adoptee I mentioned earlier was based on the stunning realization that the best path for an orphan is to rejoin their natural family, if that is safe and possible. “Open Adoption”, “Fostering” which allows this is genuine love toward a fatherless child, whether a legal "adoption" or not.
No. Fostering does not meet the needs for security and family that adoption does.
"Open adoption" I have no problem with. This is what my family did. They are always a part of our family. But at the same time, they were always in contact with the remaining members of their birth family (parents were dead). But I recognize this is not for everyone. Foster care is a great ministry, but is not the final stop for the child, and the child knows it. In our family, the adopted children have two families, although they lived with us, they referred both to us and to their birth relatives when talking about family members.
Hats off to you, "Hannah". I am sure it "has been no panacea", but well worth it. The Lord will reward your heart of love for the fatherless.
3) A number of tragedies with adopted children have underscored the point that this is not a panacea. His concerns include the breakdown of natural familial barriers to sexual experimentation and exploitation (your link, Kevin, from one of the stories of abuse brought me over here.)
And the author of that story said that she knew NOTHING about sex when she reached the age where children naturally become curious. She had a lot of feelings that she had no idea how to deal with, and I assume her siblings did too. Perhaps if the children in that family had been taught about sex and opposite-sex relationships in a healthy, Godly way, they wouldn't have had those problems. To say that adoption is the cause of the dysfunction in that family is ridiculous.
ETA- I'm sorry; I didn't mean to suggest that you are ridiculous, Alfred, or even that you were suggesting the problems in that family were the adopted child's fault. I'm simply trying to say that we should look deeper for the causes of these kinds of problems than the possibility of some kind of blanket curse on all adoptions.
I happen to have first-hand experience with adoption, and I know it's not a piece of cake. I have been there with the traumatic experiences. However, I have found the idea that the difficulties can all be traced to the fact of the adoption itself, or worse yet, the idea of the children bringing these ills upon the family through "sins of the fathers", to be quite overly simplistic and head-in-sandish. Adoption sometimes gets messy, as do many other things that are worth doing.
No offense taken, at all. And I agree with you. This is one area where I - in the fear of the Lord - part ways with some others. I do not see a purpose in refraining from a matter-of-fact perepective on sex. In the olden days the kids watched the cows and pigs and dogs . . . come on. And to dance around the Bible stories? I agree completely. Point is, bring the fear of the Lord into it . . .
Mr. Gothard hasn't really "cared for orphans." My sister worked at the "orphanage" in Russia and most of those children were not actually orphans. The orphanage was an elite boarding school.
And, he didn't do the care. ATI students cared for orphans. He did not pay for them to do that. They paid to be able to.
He may get the credit for it. But he didn't do the work.
I have a hard time understanding how we can say a man that cares about orphans would be so anti-adoption. Those two don't really go together well
'personal' testimony:
we have family friends - THREE different families (2 of them adoptive families) who completely alienated their children from themselves based on Gothard's teachings.
That was in ONE church - and not an 'ATI church,' at that.
God is gracious, and some of them have over the years re-gained something of a relationship with some of their (now) adult children - but it really doesn't say much for BG's track record on the topic of adoption.
As for the "sins of the father" line of thinking, Jeremiah 31:29-30 comes to mind. "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eats the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." Also Deuteronomy 24:16 "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."
What you said is balanced by verses like:
"Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." (Deut. 34:7)
Nobody makes us do anything, but we would have to accuse the Lord of kidding to ignore those very specific statements that even list the generations affected. "Iniqutiy" is a tendency, a bent. And "where sin abounds, Grace much more abounds".
Please provide support for the claim that iniquity is a bent. If iniquity is simply a bent, why does it need to be forgiven?
We could try comparing and contrasting “Iniquity, Transgression, and Sin” listed there (also linked, BTW, in Daniel 9:24) – only “Iniquity” is visited across generations. That word for “Iniquity” is “avon”, which comes from “avah”, meaning a bent, twisting, crookedness. “Avon” is a curse, the way Cain used it (“my punishment [avon] is greater than I can bear”) So the “bent” analogy works for me.
“God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27), yet after he sinned, Adam “begat a son in his own likeness, after his image” (Genesis 5:3) Interesting notion, that we have children whose standard is to be like us, instead of like the Lord. The idea that our “image” becomes the default template for our kids. Sort of a solemn notion.
1. "Word x comes from word y, therefore x means the same as y." is known as the root fallacy (I highly recommend to you the book "Exegetical Fallacies" by DA Carson). The root may give us (although not always) a sense of the "flavor" of a word but it is fallacious to look to the root to define the word.
2. Furthermore, you rely on the fallacy of ambiguity. The word avah is an adjective meaning bent or crooked. "Bent" as you originally used it is a noun meaning a strong tendency toward. To conflate the word as if they are the same is fallacious.
.
"Avah=bent(verb meaning crooked)=bent(noun meaning tendency)=avon" is not just suspect or debatable, it's clearly fallacious in two significant ways. And this doesn't even touch on the significant theological problems such a definition creates.
3. Without trying to parse the different words you bring up, lets just look at what we know about "avon" in Scripture:
It brings judgement: Gen 19:15,Lev 18:25, 19:8,26:41
It can cause death in the presence if holy things: Exo 28:43
It is something which needs to be pardoned: Exo 34:9, Num 14:19
It results from actions and is associated with being guilty: Lev 5:17
And that's just a start.
None of this makes sense if iniquity is merely a bent. Iniquity is clearly something associated with wrong *doing* and brings guilt (not merely might bring guilt if one acts on it). Sure, avon=bent in Gothards system but it doesn't fit with what Scripture actually says about it.
So to sum up: The definition of avon="a bent" is fallacious in origin and highly problematic theologically. I think it safe to reject such a definition...nay, even deride such a definition.
Now that I have been thoroughly spanked, can you tell me what YOU think it means, and how what it means relates to what the Lord will do to the 3rd and 4th generation?
Iniquity is another way of talking about wrong doing - usually emphasizing the guilt aspect.
The visitation upon the third and fourth generation is in contrast to mercy upon thousands of generations to those who love him. It's a contrast of His jealousy with his mercy. Also, this statement of visiting iniquity is made in the context of a covenant relationship.
So, by having other gods before God, the person is put out of the covenant relationship and all the judgements which come with covenant breaking. In addition, this will have an impact on his family for as long as the man could expect to live and see. Yet the impact of being true to God will have an impact long into time. In short - break faith and you hurt your family. It's about the impact the covenant breaking, in particular, idol worship, has on your family.
Which lines up well with all the other passages warning of the insidiousness of idol worship and how being around it can draw people away from God. The idea that this passage refers to some inward and inheritable bent toward particular sin is mystical nonsense which finds no support in Scripture.
Additionally, other verses about iniquity and it's being born by others makes it most consistent to read the passage as referring to third and fourth generations *which also break faith*. In light of other Scripture it seems unreasonable to assert that this visitation of iniquity (ie. punishment for wrongdoing) is absolute instead of conditional. It is also problematic to argue that it applies to any sin at all instead of idol worship in particular.
One might quibble over the details (though most all theologians seem to agree with the basic elements I have outlined), but one thing I think I can safely and categorically say is that it's not speaking of some inheritable bent.
Well, you have pulled things out of far thinner air than I did, with far less backup. “Break Faith?” Idol worship? Covenant? Show me that . . . not in there, a restriction to Jews. This is a major policy statement and quite precise. You waved your hand over the 3rd and 4th generation . . . the contrast to “thousands”, is that by extension because a righteous man will live that long? “Most all theologians?” Since when is our understanding of Scripture a “majority opinion”?
And for a man who appears to value precision, I find it strange that you cannot speak to the differences in “the terrible three” – “Iniquity, transgression and sin”. The Lord does not waste His time. We need to do better than just “another way of saying wrong doing”, especially since only one is “visited” downstream.
Adam and Eve were free from sin . . . the day they sinned, they died. Subsequently Adam begat children “in his image” (Gen. 5:3). How is it that now “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” in a most practical way? Explain to me how EVERY child of Adam somehow ends up sinning. Somehow . . . through no fault of theirs . . . EVERY son of Adam shares in this “bent” to sin, enslaved to it. Can you explain the statistics? I can. Paul says: “in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22) Being in Adam when he sinned placed us under bondage to sin solely because we were “in his loins” when this event occurred.
Sin and so called familial curses are broken when a person repents of their sin and calls on the Lord to save them through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Either Christ's shed blood breaks the curse of sin or Christ's blood was anemic and we are all alone.
You asked what I thought. I gave you simply that. And in very brief. I made clear that exactly what is meant is debatable. I am certainly not offering up my ramblings as a dogmatic take on the passage. Sorry if I gave an impression otherwise. If you had asked me what the passage means, I would have simply said that I am not exactly sure. There are many reasonable takes on the passage and I am not suggesting mine is necessarily the best. Please dont confuse my tentative ramblings with anything other than my general take on the passage (with a few exceptions). My only non-tentative claim is that it's not talking about some inheritable bent. More later as I have time.
Oh, and watch the strawmen. My mentioning other theologians was nothing more than to demonstrate that my take was not unreasonable - not that it was necessarily correct.
I suspect you would agree that many theologians - a majority - get a lot of stuff wrong. I would like to hear your perspectives at some point on sin inherited from Adam.
I won't nail you to the floor on ramblings :-) I appreciate your desire for precision.
1) ONE good line of reasoning – corroborated by Scripture - is enough. That is all the “Bereans” had. Obviously there are a number of tests to apply to sanity check reasonableness – like, “Can I find 2-3 sections of Scripture that basically say the same thing”, or “Does life really work that way?” . . . and certainly, “Has anyone else come to this conclusion?”, and, “Why do some people not like this?” The body count for or against isn’t one of them.
Others HAVE come to the conclusion that “sinful tendencies” are passed from parent to child, using the Scriptures that have impressed me. The fact that “iniquity” comes from “crooked” remains interesting to me. Especially since you have not explained what exactly is crooked other than a person’s heart. Just like prion proteins pass their crookedness on to other proteins, so God visits our crookedness on our offspring. Perhaps I agree with you that the HOW is less interesting - maybe by a sovereign act of God, as opposed to something literally changing in our genes, if that is what is believed.
The majority is usually wrong . . . sort of a “law of entropy” in theology, given that the natural tendency to relax theology around my lifestyle and wishes wins in the absence of a deliberate and often painful choice to keep forcefully pushing for the truth whatever the cost. So less is often better than more. One prophet of God vs. 450 prophets of Baal.
2) I have seen very little “evidence” (see point 4) to oppose my conclusion that “visiting iniquity” is accomplished by seeing my offspring teetering, by God’s active will, on precipices that I have myself fallen down. And . . . the following paraphrase of those Exodus sections in Jeremiah completely leaves out the number of generations, suggesting that the 3rd/4th generation is, as you suggest, at least somewhat “observer based”: “Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his Name” (Jeremiah 32:18) The point of the pronouncement, then, does not turn on the number of generations but squarely on the fact that loving God deliberately sends “iniquity” down the generational chain.
3) So . . . trot out your evidence against this statement: “The unresolved sinful tendencies of parents are passed on by God to their children as a default position requiring them to have to work harder to avoid wrong lifestyles that others easily escape”. The evidence for is quite convincing to me. You say you have evidence against. What from Scripture would preclude my conclusion? I need something other than “majority opinion” and, frankly, expressions of disgust. And telling me something doesn’t mean something just because it could mean something else.
4) And to head off one round, the verses in Ezekiel of the teeth of the children not being set on edge by the parent’s diet were written in the same general time frame as the verse in Jeremiah quoted above. Rather than contradicting or somehow redefining God’s clear pronouncements in the law and elsewhere – far more than “2 or 3 witnesses” - they provide the balance to make crystal clear is that nobody MAKES anybody else sin. So whatever the inherited tendencies, God gives extra power to overcome and be victorious. The difference is being able to win a race by running a block vs. running a marathon.
In some respects the marathoner, trained and enabled by the abounding God himself, actually is better off, as his training and resulting physique allow him to subsequently accomplish much more than the block runner. This is in part why people started suggesting: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?!” (Romans 6:1)
1. I again point out the fact that "iniquity comes from crooked" is a fallacious line of reasoning. It is the opposite of good evidence - it is bad evidence. It only adds to the fallacious reasoning to then expect someone to explain what is "crooked"...it begs the questions since it was never established that "crooked" is a good definition for the word in the first place. Fallacy piled on fallacy does is just creates a bigger pile of bad hermeneutics.
As to your arguments concerning the "majority opinion" I merely note that you are relying on straw men and ambiguity to make your point. But since it was a purely parenthetical comment to begin with, I will drop that line of discussion.
2. I point out that you haven't yet given ANY evidence (non-fallacious that is) that one should even begin to consider that your view is even a reasonable possibility. This is a sufficient proof against your position (as it stands) since logically one does not need to prove option X in order to disprove option Y (eg. one does not need to prove Creationism in order to disprove Evolution, or vice versa). Nor would disproving any position I might present on "visiting inquity" provide one bit of evidence that your view is correct. Ignoring this fact only leads to red herrings.
As to your experience, this isn't Scripture. Even if we agreed that your experience was a common one - even common enough to be a general rule - this does NOTHING to establish that this is what "visiting iniquity" is referring to. Again, fallacy of begging the question - the connection works if you first assume that your definition of "crooked" is accurate. Which revolves back to the fact that such a position is based on a hermeneutical fallacy. Producing your experience as confirmation of this interpretation is just more piling fallacy on fallacy.
And I don't say this as an insult or to denigrate you or your position. I say this as one mathemetician to another in the assumption that you value sound deductive reasoning and seek to eschew fallacy in your thinking. I am assuming that you would be *glad* to have fallacy pointed out in your reasoning so that you can refine/correct it.
I also point out that using the concept of original sin (ie. we are all sinners because of Adam's sin) to support the idea of "visiting iniquity" (ie. a child will have a tendency to sin in the same way as his father) is a logical leap - a leap unsupported as yet. The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. So, if you are going to bring in the idea of original sin to support your idea of "visiting iniquity" you will need to provide the logical chain connecting the two. More specifically, the Scriptural chain.
3. I again refer to the fact that you haven't yet provided *any* evidence (demonstratably fallacious arguments don't count as evidence). So let's go back to the fact before spending time trying to disprove what has yet to be shown to have any evidence. Give me a reason to accept such a statement as having any Scriptural support and I will spend the time seeking to disprove it. Till then, I simply refer to you back to my original question.
4. Hadn't planned on going down that route. I recognize that IF one can establish that your view of "visiting iniquity" is a reasonable one, then such verses are very weak counter-arguments. I have much better one's waiting in the wings if we ever to first base :)
To sum up: I am still waiting on evidence - any evidence - that I should accept your view as a reasonable one in the first place. Provide that and we can move on to a more in depth discussion of your view.
Obviously there isn’t much I can say that will convince you, since my Scripture isn’t Scripture and my evidence isn’t evidence, right? :-) From where I sit you have a well honed ability to ease yourself out of every possible scenario which would force you to actually consider perspectives other than what you favor. It is great for winning debates . . . straw men and all . . . maybe not so much for making sure we actually have the Mind of Christ. His mind works differently from ours.
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (1 Cor 3:19) Those of us who pride ourselves on having big brains run a real risk - He likes to mess with people like that.
“In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.” (Luke 10:21) Sort of takes us full circle, doesn’t it (discussion on babies comprehending Scripture). I throw my lot in with the babies.
1. "My Scripture isn't Scripture"?!! Straw man alert! Please give me one example where I reasoned, much less said, anything along those lines.
2. "my evidence isn't evidence". So far all your evidence circles back to the point that "iniquity = bent" - a claim which, rather than me simply denying, I dealt with *in detail*, showing *in detail* why such a claim was fallacious. Now, if you have any evidence that isn't founded on this demonstratably fallacious position, I am all for seeing it. You simply getting huffy about me saying your evidence isn't evidence is simply intellectual dishonesty. Either show how my analysis is faulty or be have the intellectual integrity to base your argument on another piece of evidence.
3. I AM considering your perspective. I spent considerable time and effort examning it. Now, if this were a forum more conducive to lengthy discussion, I would be more than glad to give an in depth analysis of other possible scenarios (and, in fact, would be glad to do so by email - feel free to email me at [email protected] if you want more of my thoughts on this passage). In this forum though I am going to focus ON YOUR PARTICULAR CLAIM, since this is, after all, a central aspect of the discussion here. Alternative interpretations of this verse would be interesting but nothing more than red herrings in this forum.
4. The rest sure sounds like "I understand the verse and you don't because I am more spiritual." Is that really what your evidence boils down to? If so, why not just start with that? Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to convey?
Everyone gets a lot of stuff wrong. Majority opinion proves nothing per se but it can be instructive. If the large majority of theologians agree on something
1. You can know that such a take is not an unreasonable one.
2. If you can find virtually none that agree with your take, you should strongly reconsider such a take.
Besides, it is majority opinion which was used to set the cannon and determine essential orthodox doctrine. All in all, "majority opinion" of learned and godly men is not something to be scoffed at or likely ignored.
As to sin vs. trangression vs. iniquity, I am going to move that discussion to the article on rhemas where it will fit much better. (https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/09/rhemas-hidden-wisdom-in-scripture/). For here, it is sufficient to point out the lack of any decent argument so far for the position that iniquity="bent/tendency".
Per sin inherited from Adam:
1. It is clear that we have a corrupt nature because Adam sinned.
2. It is sufficient to say that Adam's sin conveys this corrupt nature to all of mankind. Scripture doesn't specify the exact mechanism nor does it seem to be theologically significant.
3. Most significantly, there is no evidence that this is what visiting iniquity on 3rd and 4th generation is referring to and very good evidence that it is not. So, even if we agree on the inheritable nature of Adam's sin (vs. its simply be imputed and conveyed some other method), this isn't what "visiting iniquity" is about.
4. And even if we allowed that the idea of "visiting iniquity" and "inherited original sin" were related, there is less than no evidence that this relation is about particular inherited sins. At this point, the line of reasoning becomes so tenuous as to be absurd.
You know, please correct me if I'm missing something here -
"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation..."
Is this not specifically pertaining to the Nation of Israel under the Law of Moses?
(Ex.20:5-6, Deut.7:9-10, Deut.34:7, etc.)
I'm not understanding defending Gothard here at all - or for that matter, anyone else who makes these passages fundamental for Christian life.
I believe you are correct, sir.
To my eye, exegetical fallacies plus not understanding Hebrew parallelism plus trying to wrest an application from the covenant nation of Israel to our NT relationship with the Lord are all in play in this discussion.
OK, gentlemen.
Will, you brought up Exodus 20. That is the 10 Commandments, the ones we put on the walls of our courthouses. "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments". (Ex. 34:20) Clearly part of His covenant with Israel.
So . . . tell me what role you see the 10 commandments playing in the lives of Christians. The 3rd/4th generations curse is smack in the middle of them, part and parcel. You say this is not for believers, right?
His anti-adoption stance actually goes against everything the Word of God is about which is Salvation. When we are saved we are adopted into the family of God. We become his children not by birth but by adoption. My father, who was adopted used his adoption story many times to paint a picture of salvation. To contrast the sins of the father btw, my father's adopted dad was a drunk and a wife beater and my father became a Pastor so I think that throws a huge monkey wrench in that idiotic theory.
Hi. I was trying to get Kevin to respond on this. What is the basis of alleging we are not "born of God"? This is really a new one on me.
Alfred, it's not an either-or. The BIble uses both images to picture our relationship to our Father. This article was meant to follow the adoption analogy, and I don't think it's helpful to argue against the adoption analogy by trying to use the birth analogy. I would not argue against the 'born again' concept in places like John 3, for instance.
Maybe there is a perspective building moment here:
“What an example of Scripture twisting! This Bible analogy in Romans 8 is clearly speaking to the Roman custom of taking male slaves and giving them “sonship”, rights as a son to the inheritance. Never babies, never femailes, never infants, never outsiders. Verse 15 contrasts sonship to slavery, not fatherlessness. And verse 23 clearly states that Christians are STILL WAITING for their adoption which occurs at our bodily resurrection. It is blatant isogesis to read God’s blessing on adoption into passages that have nothing to do with either our present relationship to God, nor to the modern practice of adopting babies from orphanages.”
Alfred, the adoption is a legal fact. The only thing we are waiting for, is a perfect fulfillment of what was promised, i.e., an immortal body, a perfect earth, more or less depending on your eschatological views. I see no reason the NT concept of adoption could not apply to both adopted slaves and adopted children, since both become legally sons (and sons in every other sense). "Abba" was supposed to be a term small children used, was it not (rhetorical question)? Simiar to our word, "Daddy". So I see no reason the concept could not apply to both, the adoption of slaves and the adoption of children. The point is not what their status was prior to adoption, but their status after adoption, and for both it is the same: they are sons (or daughters).
BTW, the above is quite harsh sounding, offensive . . . was not aimed at Kevin or Anne or anyone else . . . just hear in it the echos of what I keep hearing . . .
And thank you for your specific response, Kevin :-)
Two questions, Alfred. First, who is the quote from? Just curious. But secondly, how does this address the appearance of the adoption concept in other places in Scripture, like in Ephesians 1 or Galatians 3? In other words, the concept is not always a contrast to slavery. And are you suggesting that the picture of adoption in Scripture is for men only?
Point missed. The quote is mine, taking an exaggerated swing at a "misapplication of Scripture". Of course many things may be said which are more important than the technicality I pointed out. My initial response started with, "No-one can deny that adoption is a Scriptural concept" when the irony of it got the best of me.
So many things that Mr. G supports from Scripture are summarily dismissed with no more than this. Technical nitpicking.
So, with that point made, this little detour is probably over.
In my opinion, a large part of the problem w/ Gothard's misappropriation of Scripture (apart from his wild departures from the text, which is also an issue, but which, as you have shown us, is easy for his followers to explain away), is his dogma about his interpretations. It would be a little different if he got creative with the narrative, but acknowledged that it was just his opinion and imagination about what went down, but no... he builds doctrine, dogma, and "non-optional, universal principles" upon these flights of fancy. That's a little more than theological nitpicking.
OK, I will run with it.
Several here have made the claim that adoption is the central theme of salvation, implication being an unmitigated blessing. I say it is Scripture twisting to come to that conclusion. If that were the case, then Christians, understanding that the primary way to improve the lot of unfortunate children it to adopt them out of bad families into good ones (since it is the only way to improve the lot of unfortunate sinners), should have an active role in legally terminating parental rights of all non-believers so these children may be adopted into the families of believers.
Tell we where my logic fails.
I say it is FAR from the central theme of salvation and, whereas it has a role, it is Scripture twisting to elevate it to that level.
I'm not Al Mohler's or Russell Moore's biggest fan but I think they have written well about adoption. Examples here:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/04/16/when-adoption-fails-the-gospel-is-denied/
http://www.albertmohler.com/2008/08/29/the-culture-of-the-congregation-celebrating-adoption/
http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/06/05/adoption-identity-and-kung-fu-panda/
Moore's book is here:
http://www.amazon.com/Adopted-Life-Priority-Adoption-Christian/dp/1581349114/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335020842&sr=8-1
It's a total non-sequitur to say that if adoption is a central theme of salvation that Christian families would forcibly adopt non-Christian babies. However, it is my understanding that the early church would rescue babies who were left out to die in the Roman culture. Shades of James 1:27 where God calls on us to look after orphans and widows in their distress.
I notice you've not yet replied to my challenge from 3 weeks ago here: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/03/a-matter-of-basic-principles-a-review/#comment-5833
(https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/04/exploited-innocence/ Lizzie wrote more of her story here)
Alfred, your logic fails because Jesus tells us to make disciples of all people; therefore, we love the parents who are not believers and would not rip their children out of their arms. To do so would be to turn them against our God.
But adopting the unwanted or uncared for...that show's God's love.
The simple Gospel is that our Father provided a way for all of his children (of any age) to abide with Him...when the children could not provide a way of their own. That is rebirth. It is also adoption. Most certainly it is grace.
Let's not make a simple thing confusing to those who would believe.
Oh my word. Your logic is all over the place, there! Why on earth would we go about terminating the parental rights of all non-believers? I don't even know where to begin with that one, or where you got such an idea.
When you say, "unmitigated blessing", are you talking about for the adopted children or the adoptive parents? B/c the only implication of "unmitigated blessing" I have seen here, is God's unmerited favor upon us, his adopted children, and I think this is a very good model for adoptive parents, as well. Nowhere is it implied that you must remove children from perfectly good homes, however. What is implied, is meeting the needs of children who have needs, without regard to the cost to yourself.
two words sum up Bill Gothard: eisegesis and anecdotal evidence
Alfred,
I'll have to defer to your judgement on Scripture twisting, since you have years of exposure IBLP theology. So I will agree with you that adoption is not at all a scriptural concept.
Are we not picking at nits? =)
Once again, how does Ex. 20, etc., directly apply to Christians adopting children, and why should it be mis-used to ruin the parent-child relationship?
The bigger question should be simpler to answer, no?
Will: You implied that Ex. 20 has nothing to say to Christians, being aimed at covenant Jews. Which is one way you dismissed that God visiting parental iniquity on children could apply to us today. Which is a fundamental concern of Mr. Gothard with adoption, i.e. that God sends problems to kids through their biological parentage, problems that adoptive families may not understand or be equipped to handle.
So there is the connection. I say that Ex. 20 - the 10 Commandments - is very much "for" believers today. Ephesians 6 tells us that the "Honor Father and Mother" command there has a specific promise . . . for Christians. 1 Cor. 9 references "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn" and that this OT covenant law is to Christians, specifically, “for our sakes”.
No, I don't "Keep the Sabbath", so don't get me wrong. I do accept the rest principle, though, and try not to work on Sundays . . . and I DO accept that "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children" is also a universal principle, unaffected by covenants.
This is the problem, as I see it -
where does one stop in picking and choosing which parts of the Law apply and which don't?
"For as many as are of the works of the law are UNDER THE CURSE: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in ALL things which are written in the book of the law to do them." Gal. 3:10
(and the rest of the chapter and book, for that matter...)
Will: Take that up with Paul, those being the examples I cited, all from his pen . . . right? Jesus said it all "applies" - i.e. Not one jot or title would be taken away - and all "done" - as long as the world stands. (Matt. 5:18) Paul said, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." We are in the business of establishing God's "Universal Principles" as expressed in the law! We can't get to heaven by those principles, and if we try, well, that is the curse. We will fail, and we will land in hell. But it still applies - it is still true! Including these visited iniquities. We can ignore it, say it doesn't work that way . . . or we can open our eyes and learn from it and be smarter.
It's difficult for us to understand sometimes how NT writers used the OT. This is a known issue in hermeneutics. I found this paper in response to googling the issue: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj13d.pdf I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with his premise but it seems like he provides a good description of some of the passages and some issues.
Here's a question: What does Paul mean by, "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son."?
Consider this image: a group of judaizers is listening to Galatians being read aloud, in a room with Gentile believers. By the end of chapter 4, who has Paul said are children of Isaac, and who has he said are children of Ishmael?
(Alfred, we'll just be going in circles here, I'm afraid, if we continue.)
My last comment:
"...some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
But we know that the law is good IF one uses it lawfully,knowing this: that the law is NOT made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine..." 1Tim.1:6-10
"Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For IF there had been a law given which COULD have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under SIN, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."
"The law is not of faith.." (Gal.3)
The Law is "the ministry of death and condemnation..." 2Cor. 3
IMHO, Paul is pretty clear in what respect the early church affirmed the Law: as a instrument of conviction and condemnation that was to bring people to acknowledge their need for a Savior, NOT as a rule of life, neither "universal" nor specific - they called that "a yoke on our necks that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear..." (Acts 15:5-11)
Well said, Will.
Matthew: I presume a “Judaizer” is someone who things all Christians should become Jews – get circumcised, keep the law – to be saved? The sons of the free woman are “children of promise”, while the sons of the slave woman are “children of flesh”, i.e. physical lineage. Any attempt to derive Spiritual benefit by placing oneself into a physical, earthly covenant is a foolish. I mean, why would Isaac take steps to become a legal child of Hagar?
Which, BTW, proves the weakness of attempting to cram all truth into a single allegory. You see, Ishmael WAS legally adopted by Abraham in the manner of Galatians 4:5 . . . right? That should bring us to “glory, Hallelujah, what an example of Grace!” instead, his adoption was nullified, and he was shipped off.
Any attempt to derive Spiritual benefit by placing oneself into a physical, earthly covenant is a foolish.
That is a very interesting comment, Alfred. In your understanding, why would Paul need to tell people this?
Will: All true . . . the law definitely is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ . . . and leave us there.
But . . . if you come to that sole conclusion for the purpose of the “law” for believers, you will forever be puzzled by references such as what I gave, where Paul says that certain commandments remain “for our sakes”, as believers . . . or the fact that Paul circumcised some of those that He saw saved (Acts 16:3). Or told Christians to refrain from eating blood or things strangled or things sacrificed to idols, just because the law said so (Acts 15). Whatever all that means, it does NOT mean “become a Jew”, or “Keep the law”. Frankly, I am left with “Universal Principles” which make us more successful if we learn from them. And if I hadn’t said the trigger words or this were outside the context of Bill Gothard, you probably would heartily agree.
Ok, ok. If you want to "take it up with Paul," try the book of Galatians. Where Paul makes it clear that the keeping of OT law has no benefit to the believer, and is, in fact, detrimental. "Having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect by the works of the flesh?" [my paraphrase]
Also try Acts 15 on for size. This is where the church elders issued a landmark statement, that Christians were under no obligation to keep OT law. Sometimes I think Paul spent much of the rest of his ministry, defending and explaining this position. I suspect Paul would have confronted a man like Gothard, similar to his confrontation with the Judaizers, as the two have very similar methods and outcomes, especially as it concerns keeping Christians in bondage with rules that God never placed on them.
Alfred, I'm responding to the Judaizer issue here. It was not just about being saved but also about being sanctified, about being right with God in daily life.
Actually, I think this should appeal to that programmer brain of yours. I think you've missed it. I will try to give a quick explanation.
(Disclaimer: there is a thing called "New Perspective on Paul (NPP)." N.T. Wright, and Dunn before him, have developed some interesting ideas. My thoughts hew more to the old-fashioned approach to Galatians than NPP but I wanted to acknowledge its presence in fairness.)
We don't know exactly who Paul is pushing against in Galatians but there seems to be a group of Judaizers that are pushing a Jesus-plus theology. Jesus-plus-Moses, Jesus-plus-Law. Jesus is good, sure, but if you really want to be good with God, you need to become a law-abiding Jewish convert in addition to accepting Jesus. Otherwise, you are rejecting Moses and God himself.
The marker for accepting that doctrine is that Gentile believers in Jesus were being pressured to become circumcised. Paul is distressed with this and expresses emotional heat against it in his "cutting remarks" (pun intended) in Gal 5:12.
In Galatians, Paul is saying that there are two realms: Flesh and Spirit. Flesh does not mean skin, it means everything outside of Spirit. Which can sometimes be said as "my best efforts in my own strength." There is fruit of the Flesh vs. fruit of the Spirit.
Quick history lesson: Abraham to Isaac to Moses to the Children of Israel are God's special people (marked by circumcision and law-keeping). Abraham to Ishmael to Arabs are the people who fight against the Israelites at every turn.
Isaac through Sarah was the child of promise.
Ishmael through Hagar was the child of efforts in the flesh.
In Gal 4, Paul says, look, I'm going to bend the normal rules here and make a point. He says, you super-spiritual law-keeping Judaizers think you are children of Sarah and Isaac but in fact you are making yourselves children of efforts of the flesh by trying to keep the law in addition to accepting Jesus. You are not children of Isaac - you are the spiritual children of.... ISHMAEL!! (slap in face!)
Paul says that uncircumcised Gentiles who accept Jesus-plus-nothing, Jesus only, they are spiritual children of Isaac because they are the children of promise. (another slap in the face to Judaizers!)
It's the contrast of Flesh to Promise, of Flesh to Spirit.
Today, when we try to live out Jesus-plus-Moses we are missing the point of the law and we act like spiritual children of Ishmael, not spiritual children of Isaac.
Gal 5 picks up with the clarion call: It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Gothardism is a yoke of slavery.
Here are two links that also explain:
http://www.lawndalepc.com/home/610/610/docs/GALATIANS%204.21-5.1%20Freedom.pdf?sec_id=610 (no idea who this guy is, just googled the document and thought it was good)
A good description of it here, start reading at the bottom of page 48: http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/galatians.pdf
These thoughts are right in line with Kevin's excellent post here: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/08/circumcision-blue-jeans-cabbage-patch-kids-the-dangers-of-jesus-theology/
Here is the ramification of my last comment:
It is possible to look outwardly like a very spiritual person but to do it in the flesh, not the Spirit. It is possible to have a wisdom search every morning at 4:30am in the flesh, to teach the umbrella of authority in the flesh, to insist on submission in the flesh, to preach in the flesh, even to pray in the flesh. I can do all those things in the strength of my flesh and so can you.
How can you tell if someone is living in the flesh or in the Spirit? Look at the fruit. If you see "hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions" then you are seeing fruit of the flesh, whether it's in a man in a suit on a stage or a drunken bum in the gutter.
If you see "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" you are seeing the Spirit at work.
All these stories of Gothard taking liberties and of parents abusing their children - those are all indications of flesh. It's no surprise: Paul told us in Galatians that flesh would never work. It takes the Spirit.
This is why it is possible for someone to be close to God and listen to Christian Rock, for example (contra what Gothard teaches). It's not about the external issue of style of music. That is merely something that "perishes with the using." The issue is whether the Spirit has free reign in their heart, resulting in the fruit of the Spirit. These things are heart issues that result in outward evidence but the external appearances are results of the Spirit's work in the heart.
[“It was not just about being saved but also about being sanctified, about being right with God in daily life.”]
I think the following pretty well defines the Judaizers, as you call them: Acts 15:1 – “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” 5 “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” This wasn’t wisdom books or dresses or classical music, brother :-) Be a Jew or you can’t be saved.
[“Today, when we try to live out Jesus-plus-Moses we are missing the point of the law and we act like spiritual children of Ishmael, not spiritual children of Isaac.”]
The same guy that fought the “Judaizers” in Galatians:
• Circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3)
• Said that at least one of the 10 Commandments apply to believers (Eph. 6)
• Stated that the Mosaic commandment to "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn" was “for our sakes” (1 Cor. 9)
• Signed his name to the letter (Acts 15) directing Gentiles to keep certain Mosaic commands.
• Kept an OT Nazarite vow which involved shaving his head (Acts 18)
• Was concerned when Jews thought he wasn’t keeping the Law of Moses, so took extra steps to prove that he was, in this case undergoing a temple ritual purification (Acts 21)
Now if you REALLY want to help me, please explain his actions, some of which (the last for sure) done after he had had heated face to face confrontations with the “Judaizers”. Some people believe this (Galatians) to be the first epistle, in which case definitely preceding ALL of the above. See . . . either Paul was schizophrenic, or your “Jesus plus anything related to Moses is legalism” perspective is false.
But . . . then you also get to explain this. THIS is Jesus speaking:
Rev. 2:20 “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.” Ouch. JESUS, as the last word, is having problems with someone seducing believers into eating meat offered to idols. The VERY thing Paul declares in 1Cor 8 and elsewhere to be a sign of our Christian freedom FROM the law. Which he also included in his list of bad things for Gentiles to do in Acts 15.
HOW could Paul and the Lord Jesus say and do these things? WHY? You CANNOT explain this in any context that includes, “Christians must ignore the Law of Moses to be free”.
There are a lot of things I do not believe, which includes becoming a virtual Jew to be saved. It is so ironic . . . we actually had one of our ATI families “go Jew”. Started wearing the head caps and fringes. When asked to pray for the food, it went, “Baruch . . . “ (Jewish blessing) We were all stunned . . . then one of the ATI Dads that had come out of that before joining ATI – and rejected it - broke the silence with a stern: “You won’t find Jesus in there anywhere!” That was the last we saw of them. Judaizers were not welcome in ATI.
[“I can do all those things in the strength of my flesh and so can you.“]
What in the world does that have to do with ATI any more than any Christians that seek to live a high standard of conduct? Anyone who seeks to live the Christian life without grace will fail.
But . . . “Be ye holy” is a command in 1 Peter 1:16, not a statement. In fact, here is Young’s “Literal Translation”: 'Become ye holy, because I am holy;' 2 Peter 2 says, “Giving all diligence”, and then lists a ladder of character we are to climb [“Add to your Faith->Virtue->Knowledge->Self-Control->Patience->Godliness->Brotherly Love->Love.”] Look at that! We are to “add to our faith” self-control. Isn’t this faith plus nothing added? We are to “give all diligence” to be godly. So . . . tell me how you interpret this. Is there anything you and your family are doing about these clear commands to believers?
[“All these stories of Gothard taking liberties and of parents abusing their children - those are all indications of flesh. It's no surprise: Paul told us in Galatians that flesh would never work. It takes the Spirit.”]
To lump all ATI families into one corrupt pile is, well, really unfair. In fact, seems like you should know better than to play into that. Show me a church free from this . . . please. In fact, your accusations match quite nicely with a great many “ex-Christian” statements about “fundamentalist” or just “Christians” in general. Reject Christianity because some are hypocrites.
1) Now if you REALLY want to help me, please explain his actions...
Paul lived as a Jew, so did Timothy. Paul lived as a Jew to reach the Jews, he did not live as a Jew to reach out to God. Titus lived as a Gentile. Timothy was circumcised but Paul refused to let Titus 'join the ranks.' Jewish Paul (and Timothy) and Gentile Titus all stood on level ground at the foot of the cross. Paul's Jewishness was a cultural location and a chosen lifestyle, but in terms of his relationship to God, it was nothing to do with what you might call 'higher standards.'
In fact, not only were those things not 'higher standards', he said: "But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ." Phil 3:13 He was referring to his accomplishments as a Pharisee - his 'higher standard' days.
2) HOW could Paul and the Lord Jesus say and do these things? WHY? You CANNOT explain this in any context that includes, “Christians must ignore the Law of Moses to be free”.
Where in the world did you come up with that quote? Did you just make it up? I feel like you are making up an absurd quote and then responding to it, which leaves me rather confused...
3) What in the world does that have to do with ATI any more than any Christians that seek to live a high standard of conduct? Anyone who seeks to live the Christian life without grace will fail.
Any believer, anywhere, at any time, who seeks to accomplish through "higher standards" in the strength of the flesh what only the Spirit can do is indeed doomed to fail. Many followers of Gothardism are doing exactly this. There just seems to be a constant temptation to this sort of thing and I agree that Gothardism does not have a corner on the market. I think the temptation to this thinking is present in all of us.
The issue here is flesh vs. Spirit. Fruit of the Flesh vs. fruit of the Spirit. If you get up at 4:20am and do a wisdom search for an hour, then pray for another hour, then treat your wife and kids with disrespect - that is not an expression of higher standards. That is an expression of fruit of the Flesh.
When you show patience and kindness to your family even when they get on your nerves, you are demonstrating fruit of the Spirit. That's just one silly example for reference.
If Alfred were 2000 years younger, I could see him spending his days arguing the finer points of the law with his fellow Pharisees. Fortunately for us, when God inspired the gospel writers, He spared us from the details of those endless discussions.
This breath of fresh air arrived in my e-mail just today. It's a succinct statement on adoption from someone who understands the grace of God: "I firmly believe that adoption is one of the central efforts in our day that can define the Church's compassion for the world. With no one to protect them, children are in such distress. Their need is so great. May God raise up families who will reach out and give the helpless a home -- a mommy and daddy who will protect them." quoted from "Moments With You" by Dennis and Barbara Rainey. Copyright ® 2011 Dennis and Barbara Rainey.
By the way, Kevin, I still have not seen my question regarding 'sins of the fathers' show up in the comments section of Mr. Gothard's statement on his website, or any others, for that matter. But it is still possible, because it is still snowing at my house, as it has been since mid-October of last year, if you know what I mean!
Kevin,
I wanted to thank-you for a very well written and compassionate article about the horrific, racial and totally misguided teaching on adoption. The care booklet was given to me by a well meaning close friend when my husband and I was looking into adoption. It was the final straw with having anything to do with IBYC material and I threw it out. It was a very bad punch in the stomach at that time in my life. When asked about the bulletin later, I said Bill isn't very pro-adoption and it was disheartening and racist. The friend who was a avid Gothard follower said, yes but he brought up some points. To encourage families not to adopt because it wasn't found in the OT and to put fear into potential parents that adopted children are going to bring in sin is such a bogus unbiblical, unhealthy, illogical idea that it just blows my mind. We all inhereted sin from Adam and Eve. We are all sinners and every family has sinners in it that to use this as an excuse to not help children that need homes is beyond comprehension. I think we are called to bring good news and God's love to everyone, not just the white children of America. Again Kevin, thanks for your article because Bill's adoption teaching just boils my blood.
As an atheist, I will not comment on the issue of biblical accuracy. As a human being, I just want to say that this article is absolutely beautiful. You have a very moving, evocative writing style. The anti-adoption stance was one that I could not comprehend and so I thank you for explaining it. Helping one another is just part of being a good world citizen and adoption is one of the most meaningful ways of helping someone.
That is beautiful comment. It shows you how twisted Bill's teaching has become and how it twists people that follow him. I would say to you with what you have expressed "you are not far from the Kingdom of God".
[…] there is another significant barrier: According to a writer for Recovering Grace, a support group for former followers of the Duggars’ religion, IBLP, founder Bill Gothard […]
Beautifully said! My heart is so saddened by the teachings of Gothard. As a mother of two beautiful blessings that the Lord gave to me through adoption, I can speak firsthand of the beauty of redemption through adoption. Unfortunately there was no way that the birth home would have ever been a safe place for my children to live. I truly believe that the Lord has removed them from those places of despair, so that they can be raised knowing Him and for generational chains of bondage to be broken and His purpose for their lives to be revealed.
There was a statement that Alfred made that stood out to me.
" And when parents refuse – like Abraham – to wait on the One who opens and closes wombs and decide, instead, on a “short cut”. That is not “sacrificial ministry” – that is me and my happiness. There is a chasm of difference."
This stands out to me and something that keeps coming to mind is, just as sin is sin, blessings are blessings. I highly doubt that your home, Alfred was just freely given to you. Nor your car, nor your food. So why not live homeless, walk to work, or go hungry until it is the Lord's timing for all of these things to be given to you? Maybe it's because of you and your happiness? Could that be why you wouldn't just "wait" for the Lord to give these things to you? Maybe you took the "short cut" towards achieving these things, maybe even taking out a loan to buy them? How do you justify the blessing of those things, but not the blessing of children through adoption?
In fact my husband and I were not in the process of adoption when the Lord LITERALLY dropped our infant daughter into our lap. If you even understood the testimony of the people God placed in our lives 15 years prior to our daughter's adoption (that would lead her to us and us to her),you would be absolutely floored! It was truly something that could have only been orchestrated by the hand of God! No way I could have planned it any more beautifully! That is only the workmanship of God! Our lives, thankfully are filled with so many friends and family who have also been blessed by the blessing of adoption. Each story is unique and each one filled with beauty and one very clear similarity.. redemption! I will forever praise my Creator for the blessing of each child He creates and the different path he sets before them. I'm thankful that He gives beauty for ashes.
sometimes I think adoption is a bigger miracle than a live birth.
Amen, Heather and Rob! I find it ironic that BG opposes adoption. Wasn't Moses adopted by Pharoah's daughter? And our Lord Jesus adopted by Joseph? I don,t think that BG and the Gothardites have read the book Oliver Twist (Let alone seen the movie "Oliver"). Would BG want to revert back to that system? How can BG have the audacity to oppose adoption when he has never been married, or had birth children, and apparently has not adopted a child? Just like the musical "Oliver," "Where is love?"
Heather, you are exactly right. I wish to add, however, that it clearly does happen that a few people adopt for selfish reasons. God can use these reasons, however, just as he can use a couple who "decide" to have a child for similarly selfish reasons. Alfred's comment, however, was a typical tactic to change the subject from Bill's clear error to some other subject. Your response to that was perfect. How can you be selfish when you weren't even looking to adopt?
Alfred always distracted and tried to put people on the defensive and off of Bill's faults. He was so persistent in this that I took him to be verifying that he really could not defend Bill, but chose to attack Bill's critics rather than deal with the sad truth.
The great Truth, of course is: we are all adopted by the Father of all.
Bill's lie was that fear should control our choices and decisions.
Gothard's twisted and ugly teachings on adoption are an accurate window into his corrupt concept of God. Amazing how people can believe some of the most absurd things and think themselves wise in doing so. Yet this is exactly what the Bible says happens to those who are of a corrupt mind. Thinking themselves wise they are FOOLS.
Perhaps all of the pastors who believe Gothard speaks for God ought to get up in their church this Sunday and share this teaching on adoption, and inform those in their congregation who were adopted that it was never God's will for them to be adopted, and to also tell those who are presently adopted that they need to make plans to move out back into an orphanage -- that is, IF they want to be in, "God's will."
When Gothard and friends point out the supposed dangers of bringing into your Christian family a child of unknown ancestry, they blatantly deny that we are a new generation in Christ. Which of us are of a good ancestry? Is there such a thing in Adam? Please. Do we inherit the life of Christ through natural birth? No. The fact is, you can be born into the best Christian family but you still must be born again. Gothard is blind to this basic Truth and it betrays much else about his false teaching.
But perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of all is that while BG and friends fear what ancestry a couple may be bringing INTO their family, they are blind to the terrible ancestry anyone in Gothardism is already creating: Legalism and spiritual destruction is waiting for the child who is being adopted into Gothardism. On that basis, maybe Gothard is right: Anyone following the teachings of Bill Gothard ought never to adopt, or for that matter, have children at all.
By the way, Joseph was NOT the biological father of Jesus Christ. Doesn't that mean Joseph adopted Jesus? Sure it does -- and it does not matter that there was a link between the ancestry of Mary and Joseph. Joseph was NOT the biological father.
Well written David. For BG to think that he knows the Scriptures, he apparently overlooked Galatians 4:4-7-----"...we are ADOPTED as children..." BG and his blind unscrupulous followers appear to have adopted (pun intended) a rascist approach and attitude toward adoption. I wonder what BG and the Gothardites think of foster care?
BTW, we can add Romans 8:14-17. Which rabbit from what hat did B G pull his anti-adoption views from?
"Which rabbit from what hat did B G pull his anti-adoption views from?"
Good question. I am adoptive parent. One thing that I can say that if there is one area where "one size fits all" formulas should really be avoided it is with adopted children. When adopting you have to be prepared for things like RAD, Radical Attachment Disorder. Adoptive parents armed with the Gothard materials would be woefully unprepared to handle some of the issues that they might face. Perhaps with adoptive families the failure of his system was very evident and so he blamed it on the adopted child and encouraged parents to send them away. He even goes so far as to claim that adoption causes abortion in the booklet that I have. How crazy is that? Nothing could be further from the truth and his logic is so sick and twisted.
As IBLP tries to reinvent itself, it will be interesting to see if they publicly retract such awful and damaging teachings as those on adoption.
kevin, I just got a mailing from IBLP on an upcoming conference where featured speakers are the Duggars and Dr. S. M. Davis. I heard about Davis from homeschooling conventions years ago, and just checked his website's teaching materials, including one on adoption. Dr. Davis' description of his teaching on adoption sounds much like Gothard's, although I can't say whether they are alike on all points.
Looking at Dr. Davis' site overall, it appears as though he has been heavily influenced by Bill Gothard, or vice versa.
I would hazard a guess that the teachings on adoption are not going to change very much, especially of that generational curse teaching is still being promulgated. Very sad.
".we are ADOPTED as children"
Absolutely! The Gothard idea that God is against adoption is utterly insane.
I left a comment on this thread a couple days ago. It may have gotten lost in spam, or I may have been moderated. I think it was lost in moderation - if so, could you please post the comment, if you think it passes muster? Thanks.
Hi Kevin -
I'm trying to lay my hands on the Basic CARE booklet 5. I'm researching Gothard's writings about adoption. I'm an adoptee and do NOT agree with his views. I would like to be able to cite my points, and need a copy of the booklet to do so. I can't find it anywhere on the IBLP store site.
Do you know where I can find one? Thank you so much.
Jo
I'm not really surprised at this idea. I was raised Catholic, and this idea sort of exist among some Catholics.
Know why it was okay for the priests and nuns to abuse those kids in Catholic orphanages? (Think like Tuam. Oh, heck, just google "abuse in Catholic orphanage" and see what news links you come up with.)
It was because the children inherited their parents' sins. It was good to abuse them, because by their sufferings, they were 'cleansed' of said sins, and thus would get to go to heaven. Plus was the added 'feature, not a bug' that no one really cared what went on in those orphanages, or what happened to those kids.
Like Tuam in Ireland, no one cared about those kids, and/or actively hated them, and encouraged mis-treatment.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/28/world/europe/tuam-ireland-babies-children.html
Adoption of us by God is biblical.
Adoption of someone’s baby by total strangers is not at all biblical.
https://velvetbocephus.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/why-newborn-adoption-isnt-biblical/
We Christians have GOT to cease buying other people’s babies and causing trauma to mother and child. The more Christian, Jesus thing to do would be to offer support, resources, loving care to the mother to help her keep her child.
Every adoptee has been through trauma, because mother-child separation is trauma. (P. 7 of this Amer. Academy of Pediatrics document: https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/hfca_foster_trauma_guide.pdf?_ga=2.130912010.442681131.1660723584-1690925708.1660723584)
Much research has shown that this separation is trauma to both mother and child. Instead, rescue the mother to create conditions where she can keep her beloved baby! Give hope to the hopeless! And this means mother, too!
If there wasn’t a market for children, this evil industry would all but dry up and more efforts would be made to help the mother-child pair.
Abuse and neglect of children is mostly caused by poverty. This is discussed at the www.childwelfare.gov website.
Help elimiinate poverty and no mother will ever have to go through the traumatic surrender of her child ever again.
I’m an adoptee who had amazing Christian adoptive parents, but STILL, the neurofeedback therapist treating my ADHD found a Delta brainwave deficiency in the anterior hippocampus of my brain, which he said indicates “early childhood trauma”!! My jaw dropped to the floor as I realized everything adoptees say about adoption trauma is TRUE! And I see now that I’ve learned more about it that it does govern much of my behavior as well as my parasympathetic nervous system.
Please don’t encourage adoption. Esther’s uncle cared for her. She wasn’t surrendered to strangers who bought her from an agency like a store. Kinship guardianship is the next best option for parentèles children - NOT adoption by total strangers!!