But of all of the adoption related stupidity that make my blood tip past the boiling point, mutual consent registries for adoption reunions are very close to the top of the list.

For the uninitiated, mutual consent registries (also known as passive reunion registries), are a ruse used by the anti-open records crowd; since such registries exist, they can say that they aren’t opposed to contact between the members of the adoption triad, while knowing full well the massive flaws in mutual consent registries, which are numerous.

There are huge problems with these passive / “mutual consent” registries.

First, what happens if my original mother is dead? A mutual consent registry means that, once she’s dead, even if she wanted contact and a relationship with her relinquished child, there is no remaining legal means by which I can learn about her past, or track down other family members, for that matter.

Beyond this is the secrecy behind the existence of such registries. I was shocked to learn that my home state even offered one! Surely after 10 phone calls and multiple letters, somebody might have thought to bring it up; instead, I only learned of it quite by accident. This is what makes it a ruse on the part of the anti-openness opponents. They know full well that they are providing a means of contact that is so poorly publicized that it will positively minimize any chance of success in making contact.

You see, the whole idea of preventing communication between the original mother and the adult adoptee sounds reasonable. right? The reality however is that no other American adults are treated this way, and by singling out the Bastards, we are marked by our government as second-class citizens entitled to fewer rights.

So, here I am, standing in my kitchen and trembling with rage, all over a simple 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, which reads:

Dear Mr. X,

We have received your completed application, notarized affidavit, and fee…

Please be aware that due to the substantial number of requests, budged constraints and staff shortage, it will take approximately thirty-six to forty-eight weeks for you to receive your information…

No, you didn’t misread that. No I’m not making this up. It is really going to take between nine and twelve months for me to receive my non-identifying information.

Just who do these people think they are? Did you notice what the quoted portion of the letter says right at the end? “…it will take approximately thirty-six to forty-eight weeks for you to receive your information…”

That is a telling turn of phrase. It means that, at least implicitly, the state in which I was born recognizes the reality that the information in my file is mine. It recognizes that my original birth certificate is mine. They don’t dispute at all in this letter that the information in question rightly belongs to me! Yet they presume to redact information from the documents that they admit, by their own hand, are rightly mine!!

I wonder how they would respond to me treating taxes this way??

John Agricola – Luther's opponent in the original antinomian controversy.

Having summarized the first use of the law (usus primus – the evangelical use), we turn now to a summary of the second use of the law (usus secondus).

The second use of the law is its function in public life as a guide to the civil magistrate in the prosecution of his task as the minister of God in all things pertaining to the state. The magistrate is required by God to reward good and punish evil (Rom. 13:3-4). Nothing could be more essential to this sort of work than a reliable guide to right and wrong, good and evil. And no better guide can be found than the law of God.

Here the Protestant Reformers were in one accord. Concerning the restraint of sin, Marin Luther writes in his Lectures on Galatians (3:19), “The law…restrains the wicked. This civic restraint is extremely necessary and was instituted by God, oth for the sake of public peace and for the sake of preserving everything, but especially to prevent the course of the Gospel from being hindered by the tumults and seditions of wild men.” John Calvin concurs with Luther’s judgement:

The…function of the law is this: at least by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who are untouched by any care for what is just and right unless compelled by hearing the dire threats in the law. But they are restrained not because their inner mind is stirred or affected, but because, being bridled, so to speak, they keep their hands from outward activity, and hold inside the depravity that otherwise they would wantonly have indulged. (Institutes 2.7.10)

The civil use of the law is thoroughly rooted in the Scriptures, most specifically in Romans 13:1-7, and in a realistic doctrine of fallen human nature. The law teaches us that the powers that be are ordained of God in order to administer justice –– justice which necessarily includes being a terror to the workers of iniquity. The powers that be bear the sword; they possess a divinely conferred right of punishment, including capital punishment (vv. 3-4).

The second use of the law, however, serves not only to prevent society from falling into chaos and anarchy, it also serves to promote righteousness:

    Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων, ἵνα ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι.

First of all, then, I urge that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people, even for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. – 2 Timothy 2:1-2, author’s translation.

The ones “in authority” must not only strive to intimidate the evil, but also to provide a peaceable context in which godliness, honesty, and the gospel may prosper. This duty, the Reformers believed, compelled the state to preserve certain rights, such as freedom to worship, freedom to preach, and freedom to observe the Lord’s Day.

The implications of the second use of the law for Christians are clear an inescapable: We must respect and obey the state so long as the state does not command what God forbids and forbid what God commands. In all other cases, civil disobedience is unlawful. To resist authority is to resist the ordinance of God, “and those who resist will receive to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:2). This is a critical reality to affirm in our day, when even Christians are prone to be swept along with a worldly spirit of rebellion and contempt for authority.

As was stated in the previous post, the first use of the law is its evangelical use. As it is wielded by the Holy Spirit, the moral law serves a critical function in the experience of conversion. It disciplines, educates, convicts, and curses. The law not only exposes our sinfulness; it also condemns us, pronounces a curse upon us, and declares us liable to the wrath of God and the torments of Hell.

ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά.

“Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the Law.” – author’s translation.

The law is a hard taskmaster, my dear readers; it knows absolutely no mercy. It terrifies us, strips us of all of our righteousness, and drive us to the end of the law, which is Christ Jesus, our only acceptable righteousness with God. “Thus the law had become our custodian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith” (Galatians 3:24, author’s translation). Not that the law in itself can lead us to a saving knowledge of Christ. Rather, the Holy Spirit uses the law as a mirror to show us our impotence and our guilt, to shut us up to hope in mercy alone, and to induce repentance, creating and sustaining the sense of spiritual need out of which faith in Christ is born.

This convicting use of the law is also critical for the believer’s sanctification, for it serves to prevent the resurrection of self-righteousness – the ungodly self-righteousness which is always prone to reassert itself even in the holiest of believers. The believer continues to live under the law as a life long penitent.

This chastening work of the law doesn’t imply that the believer’s justification is ever diminished or set aside. From the moment of regeneration, the state of the redeemed before God is fixed and irrevocable. He is a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17). He can never revert to a state of condemnation, nor can he lose his sonship. Nevertheless, the law exposes the ongoing inferiority of his sanctification on a daily basis. We learn that there is a law in our members such that when we would do good, evil is present with us (Rom. 7:21). We must repeatedly condemn ourselves, deplore our own wretchedness, and cry out daily for fresh applications of the blood of Christ that cleanses from sin (Rom. 7:24; 1 John 1:7-9). This is all part and parcel of what Paul teaches in Romans 8:13-14; the ones who are sons of God, will by the power of the Holy Spirit, put to death the deeds of the flesh. We identify these deeds of the flesh by the convicting power of the law.

John Agricola – The "Original" Antinomian

I should have made it a point to put this up prior to the first post in this series – but in my haste I scheduled the first post to go up while I was still drafting this one. There is some information that is necessary in order for what I’ll be writing about to make sense. So, in no particular order of importance, here’s what you really do need to know:

1. I intend to begin by giving a brief overview of the 3 uses of the law. This will primarily be historical; we’ll take a look at the formulation of the third use of the law, in particular, in the works of Luther, Melanchthon, and finally, John Calvin. This is to show the history of the tertius usus legis in Reformation thought and theology.
2. From there we’ll turn to dealing with the abiding validity of the Law in exhaustive detail. This work will primarily be exegetical in nature.
3. This will be followed by an examination of the alleged “negative passages” regarding the Law of God, particularly in Paul, although I don’t currently intend to restrict myself solely to those.
4. Also, please understand that this will likely be an occasional series; by that I mean that I doubt I’ll be posting daily, or even weekly for that matter. I’m in the middle of studying for exams, prepping multiple sermons, and studying for my licensure exams as well. I have limited time available to me, and blogging isn’t my highest priority right now.

Now for some other notes regarding the series; I believe the most dangerous man in the world is the one who honestly believes that he has no presuppositions. For that reason, let me lay mine on the table:

1. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and that it does not ever contradict itself. Any perceived contradiction is because we haven’t understood the text correctly.
2. I also believe that the original texts of Scripture, written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) are the final court of appeal for our understanding of the texts in question, not the English translations thereof.
3. Finally, you should note that Greek is my thing. One post in particular is going to involve some heavy Greek work, and I am expecting my readers to be acquainted with at least some intermediate Greek grammar. If you aren’t, following along might be difficult. (I’d recommend reading Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Dr. Daniel Wallace.)

Finally, comments are welcome – but as I’ve stated in the comments policy, I expect any disagreeing comments must disagree in a substantive manner. Simply quoting Scripture, quoting Scripture out of context, or engaging in ad hominem argumentation will get you banned. Frankly, I don’t expect this to be a problem, but on the other hand, it’s always when I don’t expect a problem that one crops up.

But more and more I am coming across posts like this one, which misunderstands the Christian’s relation to the Law so badly that I feel compelled to correct the misconceptions that are so rampant amongst those whom are antinomians (whether they be doctrinal antinomians or practical antinomians). Actually correcting such misconceptions is easier said than done, however, since the problem runs deeper than just a misunderstanding of the Christian’s relation to the Law; it includes a misunderstanding of God’s covenants with man, and a deeply defective and unbiblical view of sanctification.

Here’s a quote from the post I’ve linked to above, which is in the context of a book review:

Do you need to read this book? Well that depends on your response to the following statement (check all that apply):

Christians should look to the law;

(a) for salvation
(b) as a moral compass
(c) to define sin
(d) for growth in Christ
(e) for none of the above

If you selected any response from (a) to (d), then you need to read this book! It’ll set you free. The punch-line of this book is that Christians should have no spiritual relationship with the 10 commandments or indeed any rules or regulations. – boldface emphasis mine.

Is this true? Are those whom have received and rested in Christ alone for salvation to have “no spiritual relationship with the 10 commandments”?  Let’s examine this question to see what we might find…

Historically, Protestants have understood the law to have three uses:

1. The usus primus, or first use of the law, is its evangelical use. This is the use of the law that teaches men of sin in the process of conversion unto God.
2. The usus secondus, or second use of the law, is its civil use, whereby the law is used in the life and affairs of the state and society.
3. The usus tertius, or third use of the law, is the most misunderstood and often controversial of the three uses of the law. This is the didactic use of the law as a rule of thankful obedience on the part of the believer.

This third use of the law is what Reformed believers sing of in Psalm 119D:

A life of falsehood take from me,

Your law now give me in your grace.

I choose the life of faithfulness;

Before me I your judgements place.

LORD, let me not be put to shame;

Your testimonies I hold fast.

I’ll run the way of your commands;

My mind you will enlarge at last.

But before we can discuss the tertius usus legis, we have to begin by summarizing the first two uses of the law.

1. Section 6-102 — this section, if adopted, would allow the courts to permanently retain all records and data regarding the adoption, and seal them for 99 years. Ain’t that just grand?
2. Section 6-105 — this section deals with the disclosure of information regarding the adoption. Two of it’s stipulations are particularly troubling. One is that if the person your seeking is dead…well, so sorry, Charlie, but you get squat. The second is the fact that it questions the maturity of adoptees. After all, we’re all a bunch of permanent children anyway; the sections specifically states that in considering the release of information, “the likely effect of disclosure on the adoptee, the adoptive parents, the adoptee’s former parents, and other members of the adoptee’s original and adoptive families; and the age, maturity, and expressed needs of the adoptee,” will affect the disclosure of the information. To paraphrase, “All those little whiny baby’s ain’t gettin’ $%#! from us.”
3. Section 7-106 — this section is my personal favorite, as it criminalizes searching for your first family. If you make an end-run around the clear cut legal paternalism of the proposed act here is what will happen: “…unauthorized disclosure of identifying information made confidential by this [Act] is guilty of a [misdemeanor] punishable by a fine of not more than [$ ] or imprisonment for not more than [ ], or both, for the first violation and of a [felony] punishable by a fine of not more than [$ ] or imprisonment for not more than [ ], or both, for each succeeding violation.” In other words, “Sit down and shut up, because Big Brother knows best!”

Now, who in their right mind would think that this was a good idea? The NCFA, or National Council for Adoption. Remember that name, for otherwise you will violate the first rule of survival, which is, “Know your enemy.”

Here's another lie for you...

As I told another adoptee tonight in a chat room, it’s funny how what the rest of the world sees as so amazing can blast such a gaping hole straight through us. I compare to what people say when they find out I’m a combat veteran: “I bet you feel so lucky to be home.” My usual response (at least mentally), is along the lines of, “Yep. But I’d feel even luckier if those jerks hadn’t been shooting at me to start with.”

Adoption, even the best adoption, can cause some strange aftershocks. It certainly did for me. Like many adoptees, I had (and still have) one fear that just consumes me. For years it controlled my every move; then if finally went and got help from a fantastic counselor who specialized in attachment disorders. Reactive Attachment Disorder isn’t something you want to hear at 25 years old. But he was right, and it’s taken a lot of work and a lot of grace to get to a place where I can even regulate the issue. It will never go away.

Would you like to know the One Big Fear?

Abandonment.

If there is an adoptee out there who doesn’t fear abandonment, I’d love to meet them so they could teach me something worth knowing!

When I was a child (think early elementary school) I couldn’t bear my mother being where she couldn’t be seen. The second she stepped out of my sight, I was convinced she was gone for good. When she did get out of sight for very long, I would start calling her name. Her usual response was, “Do you need something?”, to which I would reply, “No, I just wanted to know where you are…”

Now it’s a lot of years later; I’m now thirty-one years old. And I still find myself wondering, often daily, just where “mom” is.

Talking problem #1:

Frankly, people say incredibly stupid things when they find out you’re adopted. I don’t hide my adoptee status, but I don’t scream it from the rooftops, either. But that being said, it does sometimes come up. My all-time favorite response was, “Really! I adopted a puppy once!” Needless to say, that conversation rapidly moved on to another subject. I’m sure the young lady in question meant well and was trying to find some way to connect and empathize with me, but I don’t take well to being compared to a shelter rescue.

Talking problem #2:

Everyone one I meet seems to know “that” adoptee. I’m sure you’ve heard this, or maybe even said it yourself: “My brother’s girlfriend’s grandmother’s third cousin is adopted and [insert whatever adoption related stuff you like here].” Usually it’s something like, “they never talk about adoption or wanting to find their real parents”. When this happens, I don’t normally feel like it’s my responsibility to explode all of their conceptions of both adoption and adoptees. That’s a long conversation to have, and unless you have the time and the energy, it will likely turn out bad for both parties.

Talking problem #3:

Who precisely am I supposed to talk to adoption about? My friends? My family? Neither is a particularly attractive option.

I don’t really want to talk to my friends about it; frankly I don’t have that many friends. I’m incredibly close to one guy who went to elementary school with me, and he knows every last thought I’ve probably ever had about adoption. But I don’t really need to bare my soul every time I see him. Most of the time I just want to watch a stupid movie, drink a Guinness, and laugh and enjoy myself when I do actually get to see him, which isn’t that often these days.

There are other guys I’m close to at the seminary, but I absolutely don’t want to talk to them about adoption. First, because its a heavy load to dump on somebody. Second, because most Christians I know don’t take the adoption conversation terribly well. They tend to have what I call a “roses and puppy dogs” view of adoption, and it’s not easy to have the “adoption talk” without being perceived as a monster. These days, I don’t have that sort of emotional energy.

And talking to family is no easier. Certainly not for my mother, who subtly perceives any desire on my part to search, or any critical comments I make about adoption, as an attack on her parenting. She hasn’t reached the place where she understands that I don’t see adoption as “people” per se; I see “adoption” as an institution, and it’s the institution, not the people, that upsets me. My dad, however, is a great sounding board, but I tend to use him sparingly. No need to dump a lot of my stuff on him; he’s stressed enough as it is.

Beyond my immediate family, it doesn’t get any better. I was told back in 2004 that a goodly portion of my extended family was unhappy that I was appointed the executor of my great-aunt’s estate. You see, they told me on no uncertain terms that I wasn’t really family, and that only family should handle that sort of thing.

I’ll move on, now.

Talking problem #4:

Silence is simply easier. Most often the approach of the other party determines my response, especially when adoption is the topic. 99% of the time, silence means success. A lot of the time the unspoken stereotypes and underlying presuppositions just don’t lead to the emotional and informational databanks getting accessed. See the “puppy-dog” response under #1 for an illustration of why. I just don’t want to talk to some one about this who isn’t going to be at least a little empathetic.

Oct. 14, 1980: The Rebel gets adopted...

It’s funny…I hadn’t thought about so much of this adoption related stuff in years. I spent 2 years seeing a counselor who specialized in attachment disorders; to this day I still do work daily to regulate my responses to attachment related stuff. In fact, I do it hourly, and I do it without thinking about it. It’s just become a part of me.

You see, back in 1980 no one was telling adoptive parents about things like Reactive Attachment Disorder. My folks never new such a beast existed. After a year of working with RH, we came to a place where we realized that I was never going to be “fixed” (whatever that might have looked like) because, in effect, too much time had passed. If he had gotten to me at five-years-old, who knows what might have been possible. Instead, the best I could, and still can, hope for is to regulate the problem.

For at least 2 years, I was on a mission to find my biological mom. I pulled together everything I knew and started searching. I learned three things for this:

First, by common consensus, the state wherein I was born is one of the most difficult states to search in.

Second, the Internet, as a tool, is totally overrated where adoption related searches are concerned. You will get practically nowhere. If you really want success, you practically have to do old school research, pounding it out in libraries.

These two realities would lead to the third, which at the time I thought might just kill me.

Almost everything I thought I knew about my adoption was a lie. When I was 25, everything I knew about my “adoption story” would get radically upended. What I would discover was more than a little troubling.

1. Even though it was 1980, my adoptive parents were encouraged by the adoption agency to tell me that my first parents were dead. That was to be the reason they gave for why I was adopted. Thankfully my adoptive parents were people with IQ’s that exceeded a gerbil’s, so they nodded politely, and then told me (sort of) the truth.
2. Whenever I asked my adoptive parents what they knew about my first family, the answer was always, “We don’t really know anything,” or, “The adoption agency told us next to nothing.” In reality they knew quite a bit; they were trying to protect me, you see. They wanted me to be of an age where I could grasp the story in all it’s horror.
3. My first parents where not terribly nice people. In fact they were drug addicts, and my first father was a fairly successful narcotics trafficker, at least from what I understand. In fact, my first mother didn’t relinquish me for adoption; the State came in, kicked down the doors, and took me away.
4. Apparently I have a brother I knew (and still know) nothing about.

To this day, I do not blame my parents for not telling me this. After all, how does one tell a child of seven, or ten, or even sixteen something like that?? I do think they could have told me sooner than 25, but I also understand the strong desire to protect your child. So, I’ll say it again…absolutely no blame or anger on my part. They were trying to do the right thing.

I have no doubt, as well, that when my parents finally did relay all of this information to me, they did so as accurately as they possibly could. But I have this nagging sense of suspicion that I just can’t shake. I can’t help but wonder if the agency was lying to them, trying to paint the blackest picture possible. It’s certainly not outside the realm of potentiality. God knows, they seem to lie about everything else, so why not this, too?

So…today, for the first time every, I applied for my non-identifying information from the All-Powerful State. Having to ask for permission to see information that is rightfully mine (after all it is about me) galled me badly, not to mention that they expect me to pay them for it. It seems to me like paying a thief to return your car; that doesn’t make a lot of sense, now does it? Nonetheless, I swallowed my anger and played nice.

Now…well, who knows what comes next?