Bootstrap wrote:For instance: To oppose abortion, can we tell America that there is no such thing as an unwanted child, and we promise, as the church, to find a good home for every child? That would require sacrifice and getting out of our comfort zone. Or if we don't know if that's possible, could each church advertise a realistic number of children it can raise? A conference might have a web site with a list of churches and the number of formerly unwanted children it is now raising, and the number it can still raise.
This is a common accusation that Christians don't want to help pregnant mothers, and it's patently false. There is a waiting list for families who want to adopt children. No mother who doesn't want to keep her child will face any difficulty placing it up for adoption at birth, and in many states, can do so anonymously at some place like a fire station.
Many churches (every one I have been a part of) have families in them who would like to adopt children, and are even willing to adopt other than newborns. And this is across a wide range of denominations - Catholic, Vineyard, conservative Mennonite, progressive Mennonite, are just a few I can think of.
Please, no restrictions on the race of the children, that would not be a good witness.
I'm not sure why you threw this in there, other than as a dig at Middle America's supposedly inherent racism. In my conservative Mennonite church, not exactly a bastion of liberal-progressive values, one family fostered over 50 kids and adopted 3 of them - all of a different race than the parents.
However, it may be reasonable for some families to say they are better equipped to adopt children of an ethnic background closer to their own. Considering people of all races are Christians in America, I don't see anything unreasonable about people of different ethnic groups offering to adopt children of their own ethnic background where they will be better equipped to help raise them and give them a stronger sense of identity. Do you really have a problem with a black family saying their first preference is to foster or adopt black kids?
We would have to think about what it takes to raise severely handicapped children - but that's exactly what the original parents would have to do, too, and they may not have a supportive church environment.
The early church was famous for rescuing infants left to die by parents who did not want them. We aren't.
We should be, because we do great work in this area. But it doesn't fit the pro-abortion agenda of describing Christians as "being pro-fetus but not caring about children once they're born", so this doesn't get talked about.
If we want to protest public schools, can we provide an alternative - even on a small scale - for the neighborhoods who most need a good school?
Yes. Did you see my recent post on conservative Mennonite schools? One of them is in one of the bottom performing (third worst) school districts in the entire state. Tuition is $30/month for an entire family if they can't afford the whole $230/mo.
We cannot be a prophetic voice by retreating into our own safe world and griping about the outside.
I agree, but it's unfair to level accusations that evangelical and conservative minded Christian groups aren't already doing this.
If someone walks into an average evangelical or conservative minded church, and has needs, they're going to get them met. They might be expected to seriously alter their lifestyle, but their basic needs will be met, and altering their lifestyle might be exactly what they need. I think this particular part of the church functions very well in America.
The biggest challenge I've faced in western Christianity is that needs are already being met so well that there's just not that much left for us to do - at least in areas that have a lot of Christians in them. The neediest areas seem to be ones that have taken steps to drive Christians, their culture, and their churches out of them.