Responding to Dr. Smolin’s “Of Orphans and Adoption” (Part 1)

The following is part 1 of 2 blog entries that deal with Dr. Smolin's article, "Of Orphans and Adoption."

Recently, I had the distinction of being mentioned in Dr. David Smolin’s article “Of Orphans and Adoption.”  My inclusion in the article was due to my book, A Passionfor the Fatherless, being cited several times throughout the article—and usually not in a good way! 

Nevertheless, I found the article instructive and encourage others to read it and think through Smolin’s argument.  The article may be found here.  

The primary purpose of Smolin’s article is “to demonstrate that the scriptural and theological analysis undergirding the evangelical adoption and orphan care movement is patently and seriously erroneous” (1).  His secondary purpose is to demonstrate that these errors have led to serious consequences in terms of the orphan care ministry.

In one of his first footnotes, Smolin refers to four books that serve as representatives of the evangelical orphan care movement: Adopted for Life by Russell Moore; Reclaiming Adoption by Dan Cruver; Orphanology by Tony Merida; and my own A Passion for the Fatherless.  Of those four books, mine is certainly the least well-known, so it was—in a weird way—an honor to be included with men I respect and some I have the privilege of calling friends.

At the conclusion of his article, Dr. Smolin offers an invitation for continued dialogue.  I have already corresponded with Dr. Smolin and told him I appreciate his critique.  In my correspondence with him, I have found him as good as his word.  He is cordial to those with whom he disagrees and enters into discussions with good faith.     

Here are some of my thoughts on Smolin’s article that may be helpful for continuing a dialogue:

First, Smolin rightly realizes that theology has practical consequences.

The impact of theology on our actions is a major concern of my ministry and book.  I appreciated that Smolin’s article is a theological argument.  He is concerned with dangerous currents within the pro-adoption movement and realizes that faulty theology may be to blame.

He contends that “the errors of scriptural and theological analysis have produced, and are producing, practices that in scriptural and Biblical terms would be called ‘sinful’ and in more secular language can be called exploitative” (1).

While I disagree with aspects of his contention regarding the extent of the scriptural and theological errors and the extent of the exploitative effects of the ministry,  Smolin and I are very close in terms of where the starting point of the discussion should be.  Furthermore, his desire to be faithful to the biblical evidence has certainly caused me to search the Scriptures more carefully in the days since reading his article.

Second, he rightly understands the need to care for the disenfranchised.

This is obviously an area of significant agreement.  Smolin cites my work at the conclusion of the following paragraph:

…God asserts his role as the protector and provider of this vulnerable family unit, and demands that His people, rather than exploiting the vulnerability of this family unit, imitate Him by protecting and providing for the widow and the fatherless (20).

I’m uncertain as to whether or not Smolin is citing me to indicate my agreement with this statement or to suggest that I disagree with it.  I’m also unsure why he cited pages 23-56 of my book.  I think he meant to cite pages 39-55.  So, while I may be wrong, I will assume he understands that I absolutely agree with this statement and the larger point he is making. 

Third, Smolin is right when he warns of the danger of confusing texts on caring for orphans with calls to adoption. 

Smolin argues that one of the fallacies of the evangelical orphan care movement is to see “adoption” injunctions in every text dealing with caring for orphans (e.g., 2).  He is correct to see this tendency.  While I would argue he overstates the discontinuity between adoption and caring for the orphan, his point deserves consideration.

I make a similar point in my book (e.g., 22-23; 195).  There is a reason I tried to make my book deal with orphan care ministry and not just adoption.  I’ve been concerned that churches have focused too much on adoption and not enough on holistic orphan care ministry.  Even though I’ve been vaguely aware of this danger, I certainly haven’t been able to articulate it as well—or as strongly—as Smolin. 

Fourth, he grapples with moral issues that must be addressed by the evangelical orphan care movement. 

Smolin offers a blistering critique of the evangelical orphan care ministry’s intercountry adoption focus. 

The intercountry adoption system routinely is willing to spend $20,000 to $40,000 on an intercountry adoption, while not being willing to spend even a few hundred dollars on the preservation of the original family.  Hence, taking away children from the poor is not considered a corrupt or illegal practice by the modern intercountry adoption movement, but instead is considered standard practice.  Intercountry adoption systems that offer family preservation assistance to avoid relinquishment due to poverty are, in developing nations, the exception rather than the rule.  The movement has yet to learn that taking away the children of the poor and vulnerable is neither a Christian nor a humanitarian act” (30, emphases added).

 Yes, Smolin verges on presenting a false dichotomy between adoption and family preservation and over generalizes, both of which I will address later.  But my stomach churned as I read these words because I fear Smolin is largely right.   This reality must be forcefully addressed by the evangelical community. 

Sometimes when I look at my adopted daughter, I mourn for her birth family.  It saddens me that her father will never get to experience the joy of being the dad of this amazing child.  The fact that she is not with her birth family means a tragedy has occurred.

Next blog will look more closely at areas of disagreement with Dr. Smolin's article.

Do Evangelicals Hate Jesus?

The Huffington Post recently published an article by Dan Cady that was provocatively entitled, “Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus.” If the article’s title didn’t tip you off, let me clue you in: Cady really seems to dislike Evangelicals, particularly what he views as their hypocrisy.


Here is the central argument of his article, which is based upon a recent Pew survey:

White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

It is an audacious claim, and Cady backs it up by first summarizing his understanding of some aspect of Jesus’ teaching and then how Evangelicals violate it by their actions and political stance (paragraph breaks added for clarity).

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.

Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.

Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do.

In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

Before I address the problematic aspects of Cady’s article, let’s begin with confession. Is there anyone among us who would claim to follow our Lord completely? I hope none of us would be so arrogant. I am certainly guilty of loving this material world too much. My prayer, of course, would be that when confronted with my failure, I would respond with repentance. May each of us have the grace to acknowledge that our critics are right on one point: we fail to perfectly practice what we preach. 

I would hope that we find that more dismaying than they!

That being said, I take several issues with Mr. Cady’s argument. First, there is not a single citation of Scripture throughout his work. Cady is not a theologian and cites no Scripture or even other sources as he attempts to summarize the totality of Jesus’ teaching. It is shocking that he fails to mention the centrality of repentance and faith in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus preached a coming theocracy...does Cady wish Evangelicals to work to implement that into public policy?

Second, Cady presents a worldview that he has hand-crafted using absurd twists of logic. “Evangelicals” are a gross caricature that seem to march in lock-step on various positions. I believe that Cady actually fails to understand the study he is citing to make his argument. The study he cites is about the beliefs of the Tea Party not about the beliefs of Evangelicals. The Pew study notes that many Evangelicals support the Tea Party and that many Tea Party activists have similar moral views, but nowhere does it delve into the beliefs of Evangelicals. In fact, the Pew study notes that only 42% of Tea Partiers indicate an agreement with Conservative Christians.

Third, another logical fallacy consists of the false dichotomies he presents. According to Cady, I either support the democratic tax policy or embrace corporate greed? I must either embrace a national health care system that will expand access to abortion or I hate poor people? Can I have a third option? Please?

Cady has created an idolatrous Jesus, one that agrees with him on policy, and Cady seems upset when Evangelicals don’t bow down to it.

I have expressed concern before that Evangelicals believe that the Republican party or Conservative movement is synonymous with Christianity. It is not. There is a love for the material world that is damning for the soul within the Republican party. No matter how much it talks about moral values, that does not mean that it has embraced the repentance and faith that the gospel demands. Don’t be deceived.

At the same time, don’t be deceived by those who deny the deity and lordship of Jesus Christ. Just because a party talks about helping the poor doesn’t mean that it rightly understands the life-transforming and God-exalting compassion to which we as believers are called.  Simply proclaiming that you are trying to help people doesn't make it so.