Well, this for one,
The tragic spectacle of a seven-year-old boy sent flying alone back to Russia, returned by an adoptive mother in the United States, has caught the attention of the watching world. Torry Hansen put the boy on a plane and sent him back to Russia with a note explaining that she could not handle him.
The horror of the situation was captured in language by Patricia Cogen, who told CNN that this American mother has returned her own son to Russia “like a pair of pants that didn’t fit.”
Of course, far more is at stake here, for Christians understand that adoption is a central metaphor of our salvation in Christ.
Maybe to make up for this we could put up all the middle age Christians for adoption and send them off to a Siberian orphanage! Yes? Maybe?
It's a toss up as to who is more caught up in the adoption fad, Christians or Hollywood celebrities. Which in and of itself is telling as both groups are comprised of pompous holier-than-thou exploiters of anything remotely resembling a tragedy for the purposes of doing advertisements for their industries (which of course fills their own pockets with green).
In fact, it's hard to think of any real dividing line between Tinseltown and Jesusville. They both promote miscegenation, the erosion of national borders, immigration, universal mandates on morality, consumerism, capitalism, anti-White hatred, "individualism" and the general notion that we're all one big "family of man". The Christians have even (almost unanimously) realigned their views on homosexuality to Hollywood's dictate, just as they did a few decades ago on interracial marriage.
But let's be honest, a church service is basically vaudeville minus the lame one liners.
And they both have a tendency to glorify the very things they hypocritically decry.
(I still contend the most ironic thing about Christianity and its description of the Anti-Christ and Global government is that no system better fits the bill than Christianity.
Indeed, the person who best fits the description of the Anti-Christ is Jesus Christ.)
As to the article on the adopted Russian kid, the writer (head-cheese of the Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler) repeatedly, and I can only assume intentionally, phrases the situation with the language, "her own son".
It wasn't her own son. It wasn't her child at all and never would have been.
One thing, and one thing alone, makes someone a person's child and that is if they are your biological offspring.
If they are not your biological descendant then you are not their father or mother.
If they are not related to you by blood then they are not your brother or sister or grandfather or grandmother or uncle or aunt or niece or nephew or cousin or son or daughter or mother or father.
They never will be.
To insist otherwise is to engage in a debate with nature, insisting that reality has it all wrong.
You CANNOT be adopted into a family. A family is a biological unit. If there is no biological connection, there is no family.
This is why, for example, when a family member divorces a spouse we no longer refer to that person as a sister-in-law or brother-in-law or daughter in-law or son in-law and so on. (the key there being IN-LAW)
Adoption in the historical sense meant the giving of shelter to a child (usually already related) whose parents died or were rendered incapable of taking care of them. There was no pretense that the child was magically made a member of that particular family branch.
They usually kept their own last names and were raised with the awareness that they were in a unique circumstance, relative to the actual family.
There was no pretense that they were a son or daughter or brother or sister.
They were (and always would be) a stranger, granted added hospitality until they came of age.
Once grown they would enter the world with the identity (surname, personality traits, temperament and so on) that their biological parents passed onto them through genes.
But as with all things in recent times a great many have taken liberty with the concept and added their own deranged ideals and definitions to the action.
And the bible's text is so wordy and far ranging in topic and contradiction that you can derive whatever doctrine you like from it.
As to being "God's adopted sons", well, the Bible's description of the consummation of the end times refers to believers as BOTH God's sons as well as Jesus's Bride!
Call me a prude, but that's a party I think I'll pass on.