Saturday

Orphan, Foundling, Or Runaway?

George Muller, the British pastor famous for starting orphanages in the 19th century, would only allow “double” orphans into his facilities. He would not take “half” orphans, foundlings, children impoverished by divorce or abandonment, or runaways. While he is to be commended for the help he gave, it must be noted that none of the money he secured by prayer was allowed to be used to feed foundlings, half-orphans, or runaways. The great London preacher, Charles Spurgeon, had an Orphanage that would take double and single orphans (paternal), but no others.

A double-orphan is a child who has lost both parents by death. George Muller wrote, “It was proposed to receive only such children as had been bereft of both parents...” All children who entered his homes had to prove that their parents were married at the time of their birth, and that both were now dead. He strictly followed this policy throughout his ministry. A single or half-orphan is a child who has lost one parent. Widows often watched their children (paternal half-orphans) starve because they were unable to support them.

“Foundling” is only one of a category of names historically placed under the catchall heading: “illegitimate”. Generally an unwed mother would be unable to provide for the child and herself, so to survive she was faced with the decision to abandon her child. These mothers would often leave their newborns on church steps, or by mansion gates hoping someone would have pity and care for their child. I know it’s hard to believe, but foundlings generally died in the streets because there was no home for them, and adoption, as it is known today in the western world, has generally been illegal throughout most of history. Historically, and in much of the world today, runaways were usually children who had been cruelly beaten and/or regularly abused sexually in their homes to the point that their only way out was to run.

British almshouses (poorhouses) were more difficult to get into than either of the other institutions mentioned in the first paragraph. Spurgeon and Muller both lamented the cruel system of gathering signatures, securing votes, and the complex paper work necessary to place a child into an almshouse. Most almshouses were notoriously horrible places. 90% of the foundlings who went into almshouses died before reaching 10 years old. It took Thomas Coram, a wealthy retired shipbuilder who was shocked to see dead babies in the streets of London, years to get legal permission to open the first home for foundlings. Afterwords his legal charter was repeatedly debated, and at one point rescinded, because saving foundlings was considered a corrupting influence on society.

It seems strange to many modern Americans that children would be categorized in such a fashion, and that homes for destitute children would choose between homeless and impoverished children based on how they came to be in such a desperate condition. Yet prejudices against these children are still deeply woven into the darker fabric of our culture and history, but, to our credit, still not as boldly woven as in much of the rest of the world. In the modern world prejudices against homeless children who are not orphans remains entrenched and open. The children in Rivers of Mercy, a home we sponsor in Mexico City, are often called “recogidos” meaning: trash you pick up in the street and take home. Many church-goers will not allow their children to play or socialize with these rescued children.

Legal adoption has been a great source of help for orphaned and non-orphaned children. In the U.S. and Britain it served to remove the opportunity for prejudice by giving a child the name of their adoptive parent. England didn’t allow couples to legally adopt children until 1926. It only became legal in the U.S. in the latter half of the 19th century. Even then it took almost a century before adopted children could get new birth certificates without an “illegitimate” stamp.

In many eastern and middle-eastern nations children still suffer under these oppressive categories and laws. For example: adoption is illegal in Islamic states because it is prohibited by Islamic Law. Children are legally categorized as: latim (double-orphans) and Laqit (foundlings). In some more secularized Muslim states Latim can be adopted, but not laqit. Laqit also are given, by law, names which identify them as “illegitimate”, or they are not allowed to use certain “clean” names. These laws essentially brand them forever as laqit thus affecting their ability to marry, be educated, and find good employment. Under Islamic law it is also illegal to remove a child from his birth country, or allow him to be placed into the care of non-Muslims. Under these laws well-meaning western or Christian organizations are prohibited from changing the legal status of these children.

In most of the world there is still little remedy for children caught in this vortex of deep poverty, abuse, and prejudice. My view… and perhaps the view of many others is simple: children who are hurting and impoverished for any reason are just simply children... in need of help. Let’s help them! Oh... just so you'll know, I was once a foundling.

Wednesday

Perfect Woman???

Proverbs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

You won’t hear this often in our utopian based Christian culture, but this chapter was not intended to be an expose’ on the attainable goals of womanhood. This was not a description of any woman who ever has been or ever will be an inhabitant of this planet.

The word translated “who” is a Hebrew question (who?) usually used when seeking the identity, ancestry, or an external fact about a person. But it has a very important shade of meaning when it is used as it is in this verse. “In impassioned prose, and especially in poetry, implying the answer few or none; it is equivalent to a rhetorical negative.” BDB

This passage is definitely Hebrew poetry (each verse begins with a Hebrew letter), and therefore it has, by use of this word, the implied answer of “few or none” can find such a virtuous woman. The question then is: did the author believe there was or ever could be such a woman? I believe the intent of the writer was to declare that no women can meet this description. The Hebrew Scholar and pastor, John Gill, agrees, “But, the description cannot agree with any of the daughters of fallen Adam, literally understood; not with Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon; nor with the Virgin Mary; nor indeed with any other; for though some parts of the description may meet in some women, yet not all in one.”

Some reader may now be thinking, “What if your wife reads this?” I hope she does, because it will give me the opportunity to tell her one more time how much I love her, and I love her just as she is now, was yesterday, and will be tomorrow. That I will stay in love with her whatever comes. I hope she stopped worrying about being the perfect wife and mother years ago... and has just let herself fall into the unconditional, adoring love of her husband, children, and grandchildren. You have no idea how much I love this woman.

Some people worry so much about being something they aren't, that they can't enjoy being just who they are, and let themselves be loved in a rapturous unconditional way. I am not saying that we should not strive to be better, we should. But striving to be better is also a declaration that we haven't reached that goal. And there is a comfort in knowing that those nearest you know that about you... and seem to not even notice, because they love you... the real you.

So what is the reason for this chapter in the Bible? I think I have just stated it. It is a standard too high to reach… but is that not always the case with perfection? The perfection of the law is there for one main reason: to show us how far we are from perfection. When we know this, and only when we know this, can we let ourselves fall into the unconditional, adoring love of our Savior. We have no idea how much He loves us.
I have two other posts you might want to read: Will You Still Love Me If You Know Me? and Will I Ever Find True Love?

Tuesday

Conspiracy

Mark 3:6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

The more I have read this verse the more I am astounded by it. It is the open blatant expression of religious conspiracy. A conspiracy in which sometime political enemies participated because they had the same goal: destroy Jesus. The saddest meeting in human history...

The Herodians were the political supporters of Herod the Great and his descendants. You know the ones… they killed all children below 2 years old just to rid the world of the baby Jesus. They were willing to do anything to keep political power. The Pharisees... you know them too, they were also willing to do anything to keep religious/political power.

In every country today there are those who, like them, will do anything to keep power. And the missionaries of Jesus are working in those countries.

This Greek word translated “counsel” in the Gospels tracks the conspiracy to destroy the altogether lovely one, Jesus. The word culminates at the conspiracy to keep Jesus in the grave. Follow the trail: Mark 3:6, Matthew 12:14, 22:15, 27:1, Mark 15:1, Matthew 28:12. And… they believed they were right...

How many “counsels” will meet today to stop the ministry of Jesus? Will you pause now and pray for those who carry on the ministry of Jesus while in harms way? Missionaries who serve in Islamic countries. Missionaries serving in countries who are unfriendly to the Gospel of Christ. Missionaries who work among the tribes and in the regions beyond. These are amazing people who are worthy of our support and prayer. Know we have prayed for you today.

Samurai Of The Insect World Roasted Alive By Bees

This year in Japan up to 40 people may die from the stings of the largest hornet in the world. This hornet is known as the Asian Giant Hornet or Vespa Mandarinia. It can grow to 2 inches long with a wingspan of 3 inches. This giant can range up to 60 miles in a day and fly at speeds between 25 and 40 MPH. Thankfully it’s not in the U.S.

The 1/4 inch stinger can give a very painful sting, and can, unlike bees, sting multiple times. Its venom has at least 8 separate toxins. One serves to intensify the pain and swelling while another gives off a chemical signal for other hornets to come help. It also releases enzymes that can “melt” human tissues causing sores similar to spider bites.

The most severe damage is done to bee hives. These predators can destroy a beehive of 30,000 bees in a matter of a few hours. It is a battle of epic proportions as individual hornets with their powerful mandibles kill as many as 30 bees per minute, most by decapitation.

Once they have killed all the bees in the hive they feast on honey, and take the bee larvae to feed to their larvae. The adult hornets make a paste out of the bee larvae to feed to their young, the byproduct of the paste is a clear liquid that the adults drink for energy. The liquid is sold in Asia as an energy drink.

But some Asian bees have an amazing defense against this powerful predator. When the scout approaches the hive the bees lure it into the hive, then hundreds of bees cover it while vibrating their bodies. The vibration produces extreme heat. The heat necessary to kill the hornet is 2 degrees less than the bee, so the bees heat the wasp to just the right temperature then stop. Another series of complex systems and behaviors integrated together by an amazing Creator.

Monday

The Self-indictment of Moral Conservatism

Romans 2:1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Conscience is an important Bible word which is found in the New Testament not the Old. It means, “the faculty of moral consciousness or awareness by which moral judgments relating to right and wrong are made.” BDAG

Conscience begins with self-awareness, and moves to the innate recognition that right and wrong exist. This is more than learned socialization. It is an inseparable aspect of human consciousness. It is a state of being. It is the mark of our creator obligating us to be morally like Him.

This text is not opposed to judging, it is a warning of the self-indictment contained in the act of judging. When we judge another person we prove we have a conscience, can recognize the need for right thought and behavior, and we are confident enough in this knowledge to measure the moral state of someone else.  We then, when judged by God, cannot plead that we did not know. We are, as the verse says, inexcusable.

The more detailed our knowledge of the precision of moral perfection the greater our own condemnation. This is why nearness to God never leads to arrogance... it leads to humility, and more dependence on the Gospel.

It is not obedience to a list of rules, but the purity of ourselves that conscience seeks. Our conscience may find temporary solace in an obeyable list of behavioral rules, but it can never by behavioral means fully free itself from the conscious weight of imperfection. That ever-present nudge of conscience that we are not as we should be is an indicator that we need something more than we have within us to be at peace with ourselves and our Creator. Jesus put the demand of conscience this way: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48 Then... He gave us the Gospel.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails