Skip to main content

A Family Union

This is the fourth and final part of my adoption narrative. Part 1 is here, part 2 is here, and part 3 is here.

We arrived a few minutes before the agreed-upon time. You may be wondering where one goes to pick up a newly-adopted child---McDonald’s, of course.


We sat down in the middle of the restaurant so that we could keep an eye out through all the windows. To my right, in a booth against a wall, sat an elderly couple. It had to have been 90 degrees outside, but they were sipping piping hot coffee. They were positioned to watch The O’Reilly Factor on the elevated television set. The old man was pre-occupied with killing flies. Apparently, Nacogdoches has suffered a fly-infestation this year due to the mild winter, and this determined man with a high-sittin’ cap was determined to exert dominance over the noxious creatures.

Armed only with a napkin, and an unbridled sense of determination, the old man destroyed his prey. His face lit up more than Ralph Macchio when he caught that fly with a pair of chopsticks.

A few minutes after seven, just outside the Fly Swatter’s window, I noticed a lady walking to the restaurant with a young boy: our son.

Tish and I went outside to meet them; we were overwhelmed with joy, and not exactly sure how to act. Katrina told me to order some chicken nuggets for our new child to nibble on, which I dutifully did. We watched him smile as he ate the chicken. He had the sweetest disposition. Katrina called him our son. Indeed, he was.

Indeed, he is.

When you adopt a child, incidentally, you get to pick a name. We chose Oliver Dickson. We call him Ollie. We named him after my great-grandfather, who was a Baptist preacher in Laurel, Mississippi. His middle name is a family name from Tish’s lineage. We purposefully named him after our relatives because we want him to know that the time Ollie F. Parker (and Ollie Dean Brunson, for that matter) and the Dicksons put in raising the people who would raise Tish and me will have far greater effect on Ollie’s life than genetics ever could.

He will know of Jesus, and His work on the cross. He’ll know a loving home. He’ll know a good education. He’ll know the value of industriousness, the importance of a strong marriage, and why culture is critical.

Lastly, and briefly, let me say this:

I can think of no greater picture of the gospel. Through Jesus, we have been given the power to become the sons of God, “which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” And so Ollie is born to us, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh. We chose Ollie, just as God chose us. We chose him before knowing of any good or bad he’s done. We chose him because it pleased us. In this simple act, we take part in the kingdom of God as His people.

Might I add, that no one has yet to come up to us to condemn us for adopting only one child when so many were in need, though we may have the means to do so. Instead, people say something to the effect of, “this child’s life is saved,” and they rejoice in that. Chew on that last point some.

Comments

Hal Brunson said…
May Ollie be a wise son and make his father, Shane, glad; and may he rise up and call his mother, Tish, blessed. All God's children are adopted. Romans 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" . . . Galatians 4:4-6 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Popular posts from this blog

To Atlas: Shrug

Is anyone else who regularly reads this blog troubled by the flippant use of the term “bailout” by our government and media? Perhaps your hackles are raised because of the proposal itself, and the language is of no concern. But politicians and auto-executives carefully chose “bailout” to describe what is being asked of the taxpayer. I don’t mean to pick nits here, but let’s examine this word and see whether it’s applicable. According to the good people at dictionary.com, bailout has the following meanings: – noun 1. the act of parachuting from an aircraft, esp. to escape a crash, fire, etc. 2. an instance of coming to the rescue, esp. financially 3. an alternative, additional choice, or the like, such as, “If the highway is jammed, you have two side roads as bailouts.” – adjective 4. of, pertaining to, or consisting of means for relieving an emergency situation. What strikes me is that the above-listed definitions imply an act of finality. The guy who escapes a plane crash en

God Doesn't Need You

The least understood aspect in the redemptive work of God is also the most important. It is this—the first cause and highest motivation of God’s redemptive work is for His own sake, or more specifically, for the sake of His own holiness. Contrary to the most popular “Christian” mantra of the day— Jesus Loves You and has a wonderful plan for your life , God’s chief concern is not the manifestation of His love towards men; rather, it is His own holiness. But what is holiness? “Holiness is self-affirming purity. In virtue of this attribute of his nature, God eternally wills and maintains his own moral excellence. In this definition are contained three elements: first, purity; secondly, purity willing; thirdly, purity willing itself “ (A.H. Strong). Wholly other is often how holy is described. Dorner writes, “that is holy which, undisturbed from without, is wholly like itself.” Most often we associate “self-affirming purity” to holiness and less often its equally important counterpart

The Modern Way

Rhetoric is a powerful tool. Yea, possibly the strongest, most influential weapon man has in his arsenal. Aristotle defined rhetoric as “The faculty of using all the available means of persuasion in a given message.” Others have offered their definitions as well, ranging from, “The art of communicating effectively,”…”The art of enchanting the soul,”…”Communicative deception,”…and so on. For purposes of this essay, we shall regard rhetoric as being the habitual dilemma of man(sic), in which verbal communication strives for the one goal of persuasion. Let us apply our objective epistemologies and critical wit to the field of rhetoric, more specifically, the rhetoric used by the modern evangelical churches, which I will collectively refer to as “The Modern Way,” out of sheer respect for Martin Luther, and his battles against this sense of “New Thinking,” in Erfurt. The Modern Way uses rhetoric to establish a new look on the Gospel that is neither biblical, nor historical. The s