Interracial Adoption not a good idea

[faithofjob777]

says this author, who has affections for kinism.  He says he is not a kinist, but his articles are pro-kinist in content.

3. Potential Psychological Issues Among Adopted Interracial Children

One obvious problem with interracial adoption is that the child knows they are obviously different from the rest of the family from a very young age. One benefit of intra-racial adoption from birth is that the tender child enjoys a time of “plausible deniability” and the fact of their adoption can be dealt with when the child is more mature and able to handle the situation.

Race and tribe are also fundamental parts of who we are. The child already has the emotional burden of not being raised by their biological family, but also the burden of not even being raised among their own people, but being raised by strangers in a strange land. Since everyone wants to have an ethnic identity, this could lead to serious problems as the child approaches adulthood and starts to form their self-image.

http://generation5.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/reconsidering-interracial-transracial-adoption/

I have noted elsewhere that there are theonomists who do agree with certain principles of kinism.  Not only in marriage, but in building of societies, such that one hope is to have a society consisting of only white males leading the helm.  As a kinist website says:

 
An End to Alien Invasion and a Restoration of Appropriate Suffrage: 

Kinism.net advocates an end all non-white immigration. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the worth and value to God of all ethnic division of men and would labor diligently to establish godly, honorable relations with our ethnic neighbors.  The borders of a Kinist nation would be secure, and sensible anti-miscegenation laws would be enacted, while suffrage would be restricted to landed white males 21 and older, as we work toward a godly, free republic. In a biblical society, the exercise of the public franchise will not be permitted to be used as a means of subjugating America’s founding people, nor will it be permitted to become a tool to transform us through law into a nation of godless, hedonistic automata, in hock to the company store. 

http://www.kinism.net/index.php/weblog/mission/

What I wonder is how many theonomists who have affection for kinism confess to all of this being wise and true.  The concept of interrracial adoption is a challenging one, because the adopted child does have his own testings since part of his identity is his physical make-up.  This is where kinism may have appropriate concerns it seeks to tackle. 

But kinism also will have its own ramifications, including the definition of race primarily by physical make-up.  I wonder again how an "end to all non-white immigration" purifies the Caucasian Christian race  in the eyes of God.  I still have to ask if the cultures of Christian Swedes, Nordes, Germans, and Poles can do just very well when they are mixed in with American Caucasians in this country.  What about very tall citizens (reminiscent of the Anakims), and very short ones (due to dwarfism)?  Should they be subject to remaining within the confines of their own "tribes", for the sake of keeping human biodiversity intact as the Bible supposedly says it must?  Who sets the limits regarding physical attributes, of who must stay or go?

Jaime

 

[Rberman]

I'll take the "serious problems" of being raised in a strange land over the serious problems of malnutrition, warfare, cholera, etc.

[faithofjob777]

I agree with you there.  I'm trying to also synthesize my own opinion about interracial adoption.  You mentioned diseases, and the same blog speaks about diseases that can arise from interracial marriages:

Thus, it would not be unbiblical if science were to find problems associated with interracial unions, as certain physical or genetic incompatibilities between races would say nothing about their ultimate spiritual or moral equality.  Unfortunately for advocates of interracial unions, several new scientific studies are raising serious questions.

A study at the University of California-Davis recently found that bi-racial Asian Americans are twice as likely to suffer from depression as their monoracial counterparts[10].

The Stanford University School of Medicine recently found that pregnant women of mixed white/Asian couples were more likely to develop gestational diabetes, a complication of pregnancy with severe consequences if untreated[11].

The Cancer Research Center at the University of Hawaii released a study showing that individuals of five ethnic admixtures were significantly more likely to be overweight or obese than their component ethnic groups[12].

Racial distinctions in the genes controlling bone marrow production have made it difficult for mixed race individuals to find matching donors for bone marrow transplants, according to the National Marrow Donor Program[13].

A University of North Carolina study found that children of mixed race were more likely to manifest higher risk behaviors including a 50% greater risk of depression, 24% increased risk of smoking, 20% increased risk of drinking, 34% greater likelihood to have serious thoughts of suicide, 50% more likely to be sexually active in high school, and 94% more likely to be suspended from school compare to children of white ancestry alone.  In fact, mixed race children had higher risk factors across nearly all categories compared to single race children, including the most disadvantaged single race group, African-Americans.  This suggests that racial mixing could lead to social problems greater in severity to those currently present in our predominantly African-American inner cities.[14]

These findings are relatively recent (2007-2008) and many are dependent upon new technology that allows for new genetic data to be brought to bear upon epidemiological analyses in the medical sciences.  Since we know very little about the mechanics of our genetic expression, these findings may

http://generation5.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/reconsidering-interracial-marriage-the-christian-case-for-intra-racial-marriage-part-four/#comment-51

He then concludes:

Since race is by definition a genetic grouping, and genetic variation has historically occurred gradually within a limited geographical area among similar ethnic groups, we simply have no idea what medical or psychological consequences may accrue from interracial unions that involve mixing genomes of vastly different geographical origins.

I find this conclusion he made inaccurate and troubling.  Even if we argue that medical complications is another reason to avoid interracial marriages, it can easily be countered by medical complications arising from the effects of intermarrying in one's own race.  Such is the case of the congenital autosomal-dominant metabolic diseases found among the Ashkenazi Jews.  And what about sickle cell disease among the blacks?  Wouldn't intermarrying strictly within the African American race promote furthering of this disease and its complications?  Same goes for other seemingly X-linked genetic diseases such as hemophilia.  There is suspicion of genetic predilection to diabetes among Pima Indians.  And so on.

I do not think the argument by medical illnesses is a good one at all, since I can make pros and cons either way.  As for depression, it is probably related to a low self-image promoted by racism or kinism, and the more people can accept the grace of God through intermarriage OR marrying in one's own culture, then the depression need not be there.  Those in intermarriage situations (the parents and children) will feel more respected.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

THE ORPHAN

Race and tribe are also fundamental parts of who we are. The child already has the emotional burden of not being raised by their biological family, but also the burden of not even being raised among their own people, but being raised by strangers in a strange land. Since everyone wants to have an ethnic identity, this could lead to serious problems as the child approaches adulthood and starts to form their self-image.

For example, see here.

Barack Obama is the epitome of the psychological issues associated with mixed race families.  Here is a man abandoned by his black African father, raised by his white mother, Asian stepfather and white grandparents.  Yet his whole life he has desperately sought to prove himself “black enough” because of his confused heritage.  Though a talented individual, he has embraced poisonous left-wing ideology in a continual attempt to earn his father’s approval.

Race and tribe certainly define us, but they are mere steppingstones towards further realizing our true identities in Christ.  While our goal is not to blur our racial differences, we do have to emphasize that these differences are not relevant, if we have one mind in obeying our one and true God.  So if the orphan is always plagued by insecurity and isolation because of not being with "his own people", then the higher goal of being made one with Christ is not being achieved. 

The apostle Paul chided the apostle Peter for not wanting to be viewed as dining with the Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-13); Peter was still influenced with the mindset of the higher priority of being with "his own people."  An orphan with this attitude will be tortured by similarly physical "obstacles", instead of having great comfort from the love of the parents who adopted him as their very own.  The task then is not that we discourage interracial adoptions, but by praying for the couples to receive from God the foresight and faith to overcome this stumblingblock with the love of Christ.

The example of President Obama is strangely made. Interracial marriage is not the reason for the president's twisted passion to exalt a false ideology.  He could very well have been born of both Caucasian parents, and he would still choose the dark road instead of the light of Christ.  An Esau is an Esau, even if he was born of a godly Isaac and Rebekah.  We choose evil, and may use many reasons and stories about our younger lives why we do so.  But the bottom line will always be that a rotten tree will bear only rotten fruit. 

God has once said that Israel was really a child of an Amorite and a Hittite (Ezekiel 16:3) to emphasize the decadence of her own soul.  And it was not the literal mixed marriage between Amorites and Hittites that was the ultimate problem for Israel, but her own pagan heart from the day that she was born.  So we can never say that one reason for confused people and their ungodly ways (as in the case of President Obama) is because there are mixed marriages between black and white Christians (or nonChristians).  The real answer is far deeper than that, and it is one problem that kinism can never fix by its own principles.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT FROM MIXED MARRIAGES?

The Bible is very big on tribes and genealogy. Western individualism is a foreign concept to Old Testament Hebrews, who were very aware that tribal and racial distinctions were important to God. I will not belabor this point, as it will be covered more thoroughly in a subsequent post on interracial marriage, but let us just consider an example.

The logical end result of interracial adoption and interracial marriage is a world of people with no identifiable single racial heritage, a total mixing of all peoples, tongues and nations. Such a situation is ideal for the establishment of a world government.

I believe the Bible makes it clear at Babel that such an outcome would multiply evil in our world. John Calvin attempts to explain the Providence of national and racial distinctions:

“Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries. [In this manner,] God, by his providence, reduces to order that which is confused.”

The interesting thing about Babel is the existence of one language.  Not mixed marriages, but the same language.  Since after the flood the tribes of men came from Shem, Ham, and Japeth; was their intermarriage then?  Yes perhaps; but the tribal definitions were all evolutionary, as the genealogies lengthened via the additions of names of men through procreation.  I do not remember God giving a specific command that Shem's descendants should not mix with Ham's or Japeth's.  Noah's curse was on Ham's progeny, Canaan; but other than that, nothing else was given as warning against marriages outside each of the three brothers' own family groups.

Moreover, God declared that it was the unity in communication which made the evil more solidified among men during the time of Babel, regardless of whatever mixed marriages took place.  Even so, is one language really the source of evil?  No, for it is by one common understanding about the one language of Scripture that the kingdom of Christ is established around the world.  By then, we WILL have the same mind and mouth in the Body of Christ, praising God for all His truths.  This is what we have already been given as a promise at Pentecost, when the glory of God was revealed by Christ's disciples through the gift of tongues.

It is true that mixed marriages can be an ingredient to the establishment of an effective yet fallen one-world government; but it is not necessary.  Even without mention in Scripture about mixed marriages among themselves, various pagans individually, or in collusion with other tribes, were able to subdue Israel time and again. While mixed marriages with pagans were one of Israel's sins, such marriages were not mentioned the major reason behind the power of Assyria, Persia, Greece, or Rome.  If anything, the Israelites sought to fight their invaders, though in vain.  This means that they still had a very strong tribal and nationalistic spirit; despite their mixed marriages and other sins, they were not persuaded to cease thinking as God's nation.

Moreover, even Egypt subdued Israel, and yet we do not blame Joseph's mixed marriage with the Egyptian pharaoh's daughter as one major reason for this.  On the contrary, other than that marriage, the Egyptians considered it an abomination to mix themselves with the Israelites, and they succeeded in being powerful rulers anyway.

As Scriptures repeatedly show, all that is needed is the unity of mind and mouth by Herods and Pilates when it comes to worldly things. The Jewish Herod may not like the Roman Pilate, and vice-versa, but as long as they can cooperate with each other to do evil, evil will take place as they so ordain. In short, this world can be so tribal in its focus, as it has typically been; and still a powerful one-world government or empire can powerfully arise to oppress all men.

________________________________________________________________________

But can mixed marriages, like one common language honoring God's truths, be conducive to establishing the kingdom of Christ?  I would say yes.  The mere fact that Jesus Himself has graciously included pagan Gentiles to be part of the Body, whom He shall honor as His own Bride, gives us hope how so.  Is the Jewish Jesus seeking to obliterate the unique cultures and physical features of the various Gentiles when He calls upon them to be His Bride?  No.  They remain as they are, fully aware of where they have come from while knowing where they have arrived.  

Having mixed marriages in the Body of Christ can be a good physical manifestation of this glorious truth.  It does not mean it has to be enforced everywhere, or it somehow belittles those who prefer marriages within their own cultures.  Rather, it can be honored as one more glorious way that the grace and love of Christ shows itself in the lives of His brethren.  I believe that there is room for everyone who loves Him, and seek to show it by reaching out to their other brothers and sisters through friendship, marriage, or adoption---regardless of how they prefer to cherish their own tribal affiliations.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

Last one for today: INTERRACIAL ADOPTION FOR A SPIRITUAL HIGH

My postmillenial tendencies cause me to take a long view of my family.  My natural-born children have a birthright in their inheritance, the accumulated capital of their family.  This is the vision of the Biblical trustee family.  I do not believe it is fair to force my natural born children to share with someone who is not, and to seek this out.  However, most Christians are debt slaves with no capital to speak of, and when they “die broke” there’s nothing left for any children to get anyway.  This is yet another problem with the debt slave mentality of most American Christians, always seeking out a short-term spiritual high instead of focusing on a multi-generational legacy.

7. Technology Issues

Adoption has historically been a local act of charity, most often among relatives and sometimes among unrelated people of the same race and nation, to meet a specific need of a specific orphaned child.  There is a world of need out there, and technology makes it easy to find this need.  However, there is more need out there than can ever be met with the limited supply of charity available.  Simply, adopting the Third World is not a sustainable strategy for helping the Third World (many Americans have a provincial naivety of the sheer number of people out there: there are 5 billion people on this planet poorer than the average Mexican), though the importation of millions of Third Worlders can certainly ruin a First World country.

 

http://generation5.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/reconsidering-interracial-transracial-adoption/

This is where I would agree with the author.  There is definitely that spiritual high people get from adopting a child of another race.  What I do object to is the implicit notion that it is petty to desire that high.  Perhaps in many cases it is, especially when the couple choose to ignore certain practical issues the author has mentioned.  There is no foresight involved; the idea is just to somehow do something to "save the world" by adopting a poor unloved orphan from thousands of miles away.  

But I would think that there is also a godly kind of "high", mirroring the passion we see from the earliest days of Christianity:  it is the desire to express the joy of proclaiming the power of Christ's love to the world.  

It is childlike faith in what Jesus has promised, that His name shall be known by all nations.  Hence while the apostle Peter preached to the Jews at Jerusalem, the apostle Paul had his own calling to evangelize to the Gentiles at far-flung places.  And as Paul said,

Romans 15:19-21  Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

While evangelization is not the same as adoption, both are for the same aim of proclaiming the love of Christ to those who need to hear about Him.  

If Christian couples so desire to adopt a child at a local area, then God shall bless them.  But if they want a child from China, then why shouldn't God bless them for that too?  Culture has never been a barrier to the gospel; a challenge perhaps, but never an insurmountable barrier.  We are called to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves when we encounter many kinds of cultures; the last thing we must do is to all physically stick to our own respective cultures, and just stick out our heads out from our tribal shelters and preach from there.  Some are called to be evangelists literally going to the uttermost parts of the world, and it is not impossible to believe that for others, it would mean embracing unloved children from those areas and bringing them to their own homes.  It is not as if God has erected all these big tribal walls defined by physical features, type of attire, and usage of idioms, which no righteous and wise man should step out of.

Jaime

[BB10]

I am guessing that P5 could take this line of thinking and do a first rate job of destroying it.   I'd like to see that.

[PeLLeAs5]

I am guessing that P5 could take this line of thinking and do a first rate job of destroying it.   I'd like to see that.

I've been intentionally staying as much out of the kinism controversy as possible.  I know it would only suck from me time that I ought not devote to it.

I will say that I think the opposite error of Kinism is just as vile; the idea that all churches that are not multi-ethnic blends are somehow less Godly or in sin.  The Gospel was never intended to obliterate differences, but only to join them in a oneness that reflects their uniqueness as well as their commonality--not unlike the Trinitarian nature of God Himself.

I expect my adopted boys to face some serious difficulties when they enter into a society who will associate them with a culture that will be foreign to their experience, and when they marry, it is more likely to be someone from our family's culture than from the culture with whom they share physical affinities.  Still, it would be folly to think that our adopting the boys was some sort of sin, or foolishness on our part--for true religion of caring for orphans, widows, and sojourners cuts across cultural divisions (e.g. the Samaritan parable).  I would not consider our example normative, but neither would I discourage any who were willing and wise to the consequences to follow in our example.

Sometimes people need to just check their starting assumptions a bit more circumspectly.

[faithofjob777]

I've been intentionally staying as much out of the kinism controversy as possible.  I know it would only suck from me time that I ought not devote to it.

You say that the opposite of kinism is "just as vile", which I do agree with because as the blogger rightly notes, it is tantamount to cultural Marxism.  Cultural Marxism is a problem that needs to be addressed, as is kinism, which is a potential cloak for clandestine racism.

Racism comes in so many forms, just as Marxism does. Both legalists and libertines find a way to distort the gospel to suit their own ends, and both racists and Marxists do the same. Yet a kinist is not a racist by default (for me anyway), just as one who prefers interracial adoption and marriage is not a cultural Marxist by default either.  

I also do not intend to dwell on this too much; it is interesting though, especially with the political climate nowadays, including the recent affair involving Anthony Bradley.  His case is not insignificant by any means, because he is a brother in the faith who has to live with this every single day.  Of course it also involves kinists who are not guilty of being racist towards him, and it is not right to accuse them unfairly as well.

But I do suspect that not many may want to dwell on this, just so not to ruffle any feathers, especially if it may involve people they do respect speaking from opposing sides of the fence. I hate to rankle people too; it is a blessing that I do not have much influence in the church or the internet, not being a leader or teacher, so my most important responsibility as a Christian is to always evaluate if I myself do understand what racism is. I hope and pray that God will provide us both wisdom and peace.  

As Andrea has brought up in another thread, racism cannot be swept under the rug; it has to be defined for what it really is by the churches.  I do think it is not even the ultimate problem; it is simply another instrument being used by the godless ones in power to always cause the people to hate one another. Sort of like the Jews and Gentile leaders influencing the masses to hate Jesus and His apostles.  Rulers of this world know how to instigate the fires by all the false definitions of racism.  And if churches cannot even agree among themselves what it means, then they are simply pawns to the politicians, who manipulate and entice many groups of people so that they can invent their own rules, and always remain in power.

Jaime