Newspaper Page Text
Thursday, June 1, 2000
The Southern Cross, Page 5
Everyday
Adoption requires sacrifice
S acrifice isn’t popular these days. Those
who choose sacrifice over self-indul
gence are often regarded suspiciously.
“What’s in it for me?” is the question
of the hour.
So it’s not surprising that while the
world fails to honor sacrifice, God
blesses it profoundly. Over the years,
I’ve been privileged to witness a form
of sacrifice that consistently reflects
God’s blessing: adoption.
Adoption requires sacrifice from every
angle. The first sacrifice, of course, comes from
the birth mother who chooses life over the entic
ing option of abortion. Women placing their
infants up for adoption often face tremendous
societal and family pressures to abort or raise
children they are psychologically and financially
unprepared to provide for. Family members sup
portive of a woman’s plans for adoption must
also sacrifice, by surrendering to another family
the grandchild, niece or nephew they love.
Women with crisis pregnancies undergo so
many psychological and physical stresses that
just maintaining a commitment to adoption
requires tremendous self-discipline and resolve.
While I’m not romanticizing all adoptions, I
think it’s fair to say that as a society we fre
quently fail to pay tribute to those who are brave
enough to sacrifice for the sake of their unborn
children. Unfortunately, many who advocate
abortion suggest that adoption is a difficult
and unwise alternative.
As a former college teacher, I’ll
always remember one student’s
essay for my composition class.
This student wrote about her expe
rience as an unwed mother and her
decision to place her baby for
adoption.
The essay was well-written and
powerful. With her permission, I
read it aloud to the class. The class
seemed to be as impressed as I was with this
woman’s courage and commitment to her baby’s
welfare. The final paragraph of the essay, when
she described seeing her infant daughter for the
first and last time, was more inspiring than sad.
In this age of instant gratification, the sacrifice
my young student made for her daughter and for
the couple who adopted her is truly remarkable.
Hers is a story more people need to hear.
Equally remarkable is the sacrifice on the part
of the adoptive parents. Adoptive parents who
struggle with infertility have endured suffering
most of us can’t imagine. The temptations to
pursue dubious medical alternatives must be for
midable. Other adoptive parents may have
already raised one or more biological children
and yet they open their hearts and homes to chil
dren in need. Adoptive parents must sacrifice
their privacy by providing caseworkers with
detailed information about everything from their
finances to their own childhoods to family med
ical histories. Their commitment to adopt is so
strong they are willing to sacrifice financially
and personally for children they did not bring
into this world.
I know several adoptive parents. Among them
are my sister and brother-in-law who adopted
my nephew, Kyle, more than 20 years ago; my
friends, Cheryl and Matt, who adopted their
biracial son as an infant over six years ago, Ned
and Kay who in the 1960s adopted a biracial 3-
year-old boy, and Debbie and John who adopted
school-age sisters, adding two more children to
their busy household of seven.
While their circumstances differ, in every case,
these adoptive families have been blessed. Yes,
they’ve had to sacrifice. Their lives have not
been trouble-free. Like all families, they have
their worries, problems, and fears. Yet they are
convinced that God’s hand led them to adoption
and, thus, to a new dimension of family love.
Ultimately, those who adopt and those who
place their children for adoption are participat
ing in a most sacred enterprise—the creation of
family. Even if the world is not impressed, such
sacrifices do not go unnoticed. Surely, God’s
blessing is upon them.
Mary Hood Hart lives with her husband
and four children in Sunset Beach, N.C.
Mary Hood Hart
Q uestion: I was taken aback when your April
13th “Question & Answer” column was
Drought to my attention. In answer to a defense of
closed communion, you say:
“Western Protestants, because their faith in the
Eucharist itself has historically been judged inade
quate, are considered to be impeded from re
ceiving communion. Although they are baptized
believers (and we accept almost all Trinitarian bap
tisms), most Protestants (with the exception of
Swedish Lutherans) have been brought up not to
believe in the real presence of Christ in the
Eucharist...”
Wow! All this time, when I have been com
muning my flock, telling them, “This is the body
of Christ,” I have not meant it. Or I’m just
Swedish and don’t know it.
For future reference, all Lutherans believe, teach,
and confess that the wine we drink and the bread
we eat are not mere bread and wine, but are the
very body and blood of Christ. As Martin Luther
says in the Large Catechism, “Therefore it is
absurd to say that Christ’s body and blood are not
given and poured out for us in the Lord’s Supper
and hence that we cannot have forgiveness of sins
in the sacrament.”
Now, certainly we can quibble about details of
the manifestation of the presence (real presence
versus transubstantiation), but make no mistake
about it: all Lutherans teach the real presence of
Christ in the Sacrament. That is part of what it
means to be Lutheran.
And because of this, the Eucharist is extremely
important to us—frequent participation is a won
derful blessing. As Saint Ambrose says, “For as
often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we
Questions & Answers
proclaim the death of the lord. If we proclaim the
Lord’s death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins.
If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured
for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive
it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I
always sin, I should always have a remedy.” This
is most certainly true.
Yes, many Reformed churches have a low view
of the sacrament—certainly many see it as a repre
sentation, a symbolic gesture (like baptism, they
would say). But it certainly is not merely the
Swedish Lutherans who believe in the real pres
ence. The largest Protestant church body in the
world [Lutheranism] does.
I will say, though, that I agree with the point of
the article: Roman Catholics and other denomina
tions should not commune together. My denomina
tion (the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod) teaches
the exact same thing. Holy Communion is an out
ward sign of unity and as long as the church is not
united we may not participate together in commun
ion. (I do not disagree at all that we teach quite
differently on apostolic succession.)
But our coming together will never result if we
characterize each other falsely. Ecumenical dia
logue will only occur in a spirit of trust and open
ness. Not when we are sloppy with other churches’
doctrine. I know that when answering questions, it
is easier to keep things simple and clean.
Protestants don’t believe in the real presence.
Roman Catholics believe works get them into
Heaven and worship Mary. Simple answers make
things simple—but they also distort what is true.
Pastor Mark Q. Louderback
Saint Paul’s Lutheran Church, Statesboro
A nswer: A clarification is indeed required. The
Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches
both teach the real presence of Jesus Christ in the
Eucharist. This is a most important point of agree
ment and should not have been overlooked. But
the Catholic understanding of that presence—that
it the Lord is “really, truly, wholly and substantial
ly present” under the species of bread and wine—
does not appear to be the same as the Lutheran
understanding. The Catholic teaching of “transub
stantiation” is not the same as Luther’s teaching of
“consubstantiation,” which does not seem suffi
cient, to Catholics, as the Lord would not be
“wholly” present if the substance of bread
remained. This question, which unfortunately is
not a mere “quibble”, is a topic for further dia
logue between Catholics and Lutherans.
The main reason why Swedish Lutherans may be
admitted to Holy Communion in the Catholic
Church, while other Lutherans are not yet admit
ted, is that the Swedish Lutheran Church has
retained apostolic succession. Its bishops and
priests are regarded by the Catholic Church as
validly ordained and thus able to consecrate the
Eucharist validly. The validity of other Lutheran
ordinations would first have to be recognized by
the Catholic Church in order for their Eucharists to
be recognized as valid.
We join with Pastor Louderback in praying that
the Lord will hasten the day when the ecumenical
dialogue bears in full fruit, when all Christians
may gather as the one ecclesial Body of Christ, at
the one table of the Lord, to receive his one
Eucharistic Body.
—DKC