Grace-Based Theology

The following is a commentary on a current events situation. For some background information on the case I am presenting my opinion about, click here to read news coverage.

Societal Implications: This is yet another piece of evidence that American society is going deeper into consumerism, fair-weather allegiance and an insatiable appetite for instant gratification. Things that take a lot of blood, sweat, and tears are shunned in favor of whatever results in quick happiness. We seem to think we’re entitled to certain things that are NOT “rights”, and then act like a horrible injustice has been committed against us when we don’t get what we want (when we haven’t really worked hard for it). Case in point: having a family. Like it or not, a solid family structure involves a man and wife, father and mother. An intentional single-parent situation is already a shaky foundation for a family, but these days there are an increasing number of single men and women who want to have a family (i.e. children) without first laying the foundation (i.e. marriage).  And other aspects of instant gratification in this area, such as sex without marriage and with no intent of children, are clearly related but beyond the scope of this post.  Simply put, a single mother is not equipped to handle all aspects of raising a child (nor is a single father). I realize this still happens due to death, divorce, etc. but that does not change that it is not optimal. In this case, it seems that she may have wanted to have a child for HER pleasure and companionship. Her goals do not seem to have been for the child, but for her.  When the “going got tough”, she bailed.  Just like she might have returned a clothing item that didn’t fit right or an electronics device that had a short. News writers and columnists have pointed out that there is no evidence that she even tried to get help for the child, but only for herself. This continues to suggest that her world revolved completely around herself, and that the child may have only been an accessory to that. (Some reports indicate she even moved in the direction of adopting another child… treating human life the same as one might treat returns and exchanges at Wal-Mart.)  Because his role from the beginning seems to only have been as a satellite around planet “Queen Me”, it does not seem that the adopted boy was in a climate where his needs could be addressed. Everything was stacked against him due to his adopted “mother’s” apparent focus far more on her own comfort and convenience than his needs.  Yes, it seems there was a breakdown in the system — the adoption should never have been approved by social workers, agencies, and other reviewers. But it was.  And a seven-year-old boy is certainly NOT the one that should have to bear the load of responsibility. I believe this is part of what is meant by the word “parent”.

Direct Implications: What must the child be thinking through all this? If he has previously had issues of distrust, lack of stability or structure, attachment and bonding issues, etc. — they have just been compounded. The actions of a so-called “responsible adult” (well, supposedly you’d expect a mother figure to be the responsible adult…) have only added to this boy’s issues. This experience will result in him trusting less, being even less willing to attach, having even less stability, etc. — by her actions, the woman in Tennessee has only compounded these problems to a much greater degree. Furthermore, her selfish shortsightedness has resulted in a massive amount of heartache in the fallout, as it appears that Russian adoptions to the United States will cease or be greatly delayed as a result. Countless amounts of people are now going to suffer greatly for the rash actions of a few.

Pro-Life Implications: It seems that this topic cannot be fully addressed without also touching on valuation of life implications. To view another human being as a commodity that can be “returned” (like one might do with a piece of unwanted, purchased, merchandise) is clearly to view that other person as inferior to one’s own self. In addition to being a parallel to the practice of chattel slavery, this seems to clearly go hand-in-hand with the practice of abortion. The convenience and well-being of the adult becomes elevated well above the fundamental needs of the dependent child/preborn child, to the point where the child’s well-being is flippantly disregarded so that even the child’s very life can be thrown away. Although it may have seemed like a good idea at one point (having sex or adopting), once the happy feelings wear off and reality sets in, the parent’s convenience takes precedence.  In short: I don’t see how one can condone the actions of that “mother” in Tennessee and simultaneously claim to truly value life.

Ethnocentric Implications: Many of the comments posted on Internet news articles and blog posts supporting the adoptive mother seem to be filled with national and ethnic bias. Statements made such as “all Russian children are that way” or “that’s how they are” are not factual statements. While it may be true that the statistical average is higher, for reasons beyond the scope of this post, it is simply not true to say that “all” are a certain way. Such generalizations end up inferring that one’s own culture is superior, and that those from another culture are inferior just because they are of another culture. Many stereotypes are not unfounded, but to perpetuate a stereotype and then imply that “all” match the stereotype is unfair, and ultimately comes down to a form of ethnocentric arrogance. Who has the right to say that their culture is superior to another? For everything we can point out about damaging problems in other cultures, I’m quite convinced others could point out an equally long list in our own culture.

Spiritual Implications: From a Christian perspective, this set of implications is of very high importance. Some reports indicate that the woman at the center of this situation may be a professing Christian, or at least connected to a church community. I don’t know her, and am not in a position to comment with any degree of certainty on her spiritual condition — but I will say this: “Each tree is known by its own fruit.” (Luke 6:44)   Also, the extent to which we are able to love and forgive others is directly connected to the extent to which we understand the forgiveness and love God shows to all of us who are Christians. If any of us believes that God only had to forgive us a little bit because we only sinned a little bit, then we’re likely to hold others to a very high standard and only love and forgive them up to a point… usually equal to, or less than, the amount we think we’ve needed to be forgiven.  (Read Matthew 18:23-35 with this in mind!)  I suppose that this response may not be altogether out of place within an Arminian or Pelagian context, in which a human being has some goodness or some ability to actually reconcile with God. But from the Reformed view, it is altogether impossible to condone the actions of the woman in Tennessee without being totally inconsistent with what we say we believe.  Here are three reasons for this: The first, as already alluded to, is that by believing in total depravity — that we bring absolutely nothing to the table when it comes to our salvation, and aren’t even able to respond to the offer of salvation without having first been “born again”, or made regenerate — we know that our justified standing now is only due to complete forgiveness on the part of the God that we have offended.  There wasn’t any glimmer of innate goodness, or any moral standing on our part that made us stand out from others so as to be chosen for salvation.

The second reason comes from the Reformed doctrine of adoption.  (Westminster Larger Catechism Q/A 74: “What is adoption? Adoption is an act of the free grace of God, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ, whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of his children, have his name put upon them, the Spirit of his Son given to them, are under his fatherly care and dispensations, admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow heirs with Christ in glory.”)  The doctrine of adoption means that Christians have been permanently made part of the family of God.  There’s not a thing any Christian can do to ever get kicked out of the family (no matter how deservedly).  Not even one day passes when every adopted son or daughter of God does not willfully act in a manner unbecoming a member of God’s family. We disobey God, we effectively spit in his face, we tear down the reputation of his name and family, we rebel, we run away, we act like we’re “growing up” and don’t need him anymore… and we remain in the family. We remain in the family because we’re in, we’re assured we’re in, and the shed blood of Jesus keeps us in. With this in mind, we have no choice but to view human adoption in the same terms. If we fail to do so, I see no alternative but to say that we do not even understand the magnitude of our own spiritual adoption. We apparently believe down deep that God will cut us off from his family if we slip up once too many times.  Or we believe the dispensational untruth that we, the church, are just an afterthought in God’s eyes, of lesser status than his “first” children. The fact is, spiritual adoption is permanent, and anything else is a damned lie. If we believe this, we have no business at all even hinting anything different to human adopted children. If you read this and disagree, I would venture to say you are still holding on to some righteousness of your own, some merit, some entitlement — and in doing so, legalistically demanding merit from others as well.

Third, and directly connected to the previous two reasons, those who have been forgiven much forgive much. Those who have been forgiven little forgive little. (Luke 7:47)  We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19) As Jerry Bridges points out in Transforming Grace, if we really understand grace, we relinquish the right to be offended by another person’s actions because we know that what another person can do to us pales in contrast to what our sin did to Jesus. (Yet never forget that he didn’t HAVE to die for anyone… because of sin, all deserve death. But he CHOSE to die in our place so that we would live.)  If we really believe that God loves us, we have no choice but to show the same sacrificial love to others. This love goes so far as to give up everything — even life — for another. No matter the baggage, no matter how messed up, no matter what… this is the love we’ve received, and we simply don’t understand it (or maybe haven’t really even received it) if we can’t show it to another person.  Consider this excerpt from Romans in this context: “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:6–8)

So to conclude, there should be no other view for a Christian other than that adoption is permanent, and that an adopted child is of complete, full, equal standing as a natural-born child. Yes, there can be unforeseen issues when you bring a child into your home when that child comes in with his/her own baggage, own history, etc.  The issues can be of such magnitude that they rock your world and cause you to have to give up many things. Then consider your history, your being brought into the family of God on no merit of your own, what you even still do to him even now…  and keep this perspective always fresh.

Closing comment 1: It seems like such a shame that the actions of one selfish woman in response to a needy and immature child should be allowed to threaten to end the hopes and dreams of many orphaned children, and many families waiting to receive them — as seems to now be the case.

Closing comment 2: It is clear that sacrificial, unconditional love and selfishness can’t coexist.

Closing comment 3: In contrast, consider this example of unconditional love. A couple of years ago, some friends told me of friends of theirs who have a very unstable child they had adopted, who would act out in extreme ways (including threats). Despite an attempt (or two) to destroy the family home, the parents affirmed the child by saying: “You can burn down our home. You can even kill us. But that doesn’t change that you are a member of this family.”