Commitment to ideological purity is not a virtue in and of itself. Insert your own favorite sexual/ethinic/religious prejudice here. Just because a person was committed to it and willing to stand up for their belief doesn't entitle them to commendation for the fact that they stick to it.
Hypothetical scenario: let's say that this organization stuck to the "Jews as Christ-killers" prejudice that was historically present in the Catholic church, and declined to adopt children to Jewish couples because of that belief. If the Illinois state legislature was on the verge of passing a bill forbidding religious discrimination as a factor in placing children in adopted households, this organization might well choose to fold rather than being forced to place children with Jewish couples. Would you admire their ideological purity in that case?
Clarification: I am not saying that this organization or the Catholic Church are exhibiting antisemitism. I'm making an analogy to express my point that ideological commitment is not a virtue in and of itself.
Yes. I would. I would find their ideology evil and abhorrent, something to be shunned rather than praised, but I would find their commitment to it to not be something negative. We get a lot of people these days who are willing to compromise on their beliefs, which can be good in the short term but horrendous in the long term.
Allow me to utilize a historical example: slavery. The Founding Fathers knew way back when that slavery was an issue, and a few members of that Congress (most notably Ben Franklin) tried to get the Constitution to say something about slavery. Problem was, there were bigger issues at stake - the Southern states refused to ratify the Constitution if anything about slavery was said, and the Northern states refused if nothing
about it was said.
What resulted? The Three-Fifths Compromise, in which a slave counted as three-fifths of a person for both population and property tax.
What might surprise you is that everyone - Southerners included - knew that eventually slavery would have to go. Problem was, the South's economy was built upon it, and no one could come up with a solution for the issue - no one conceived of a system to replace slavery.
Over the years, two more compromises - the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 - were done to prevent conflict from breaking out over slavery. And even that didn't work, because part of the Missouri Compromise was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which allowed for the Lecompton Constitution - the allowance of Kansas to come in as a slave state. But if I know my history - and I do - it wasn't much long after that that radical abolitionist ministers from New England supported a man
who used violent and illegal means to overthrow Lecompton, and bring Kansas back to being a free state - this was Bleeding Kansas.
Compromising like this wasn't working, but no one was willing to go to conflict to resolved it. And it wasn't until another man
who had stood up and said, "No. No more," and was elected, that the issue of slavery really got resolved.
To sum up: One's conviction and willingness to stand by their own ideologies is not inherently wrong. It's the ideology that's wrong.
The Bible also says that it's an abomination to eat shellfish, have tattoos, or wear a shirt made of both wool and linen fibers.
Unless the Church was similarly making sure that no adopted parents eat lobster rolls, have tattoos, or wear blended fabrics, it's a case of cherry picking which biblical prohibitions they'll get their collective panties in a bunch over.
(Emphasis mine.)No, it's not.
All those rules you quoted from the Old Testament? Part of the old covenant that Moses and the Israelites made with God on Mt. Sinai. Except no one could live up to the old covenant, because the purpose of it - now as it was then - was to remind us that we are fallen, and that we can't repair our relationship with God on our own - we need His help to do that.
But in the New Testament, Jesus tells the disciples that He is the new covenant, the old way of things is gone, the new has come, at the cost of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Therefore, we are no longer under the law of Moses (another way to refer to the Old Testament covenant), but under the laws of truth and grace, as stated by the apostle Paul.
Furthermore, the lobster thing? In the books of Acts, Peter goes to a town called Caesarea, and while he is staying in someone's house, he sees a vision sent by God, in which a sheet containing all sort of 'unclean' animals from the Old Testament were contained. Jesus then calls to Peter, telling him to 'Get up. Kill and eat.' To which Peter responds that he has never eaten anything unclean - and Jesus replies by telling him to not call anything unclean that God has made clean. This happened three times, and then the vision ended.
So no, the church is not
cherry picking things when they ignore stuff like that, because Christians A: are no longer under the covenant of the Old Testament, and B: the ultimate purpose of that covenant is to remind us of our fallen nature, not to just provide a set of guidelines to live by.