What is it this week? A topic that is close to my heart. Adoption.
I am thankful daily for the blessing of growing up in a loving family. In my work as a teacher, youth worker and young adult pastor and now in my work in Bulgaria I know that this is not the norm for the world over. I assure you that as I have my 33rd birthday today my family experience is not taken for granted!
I find it interesting that we Christians are often seen to be clamouring for influence. For what reason? Often it is couched in terms of saving those who don’t believe. At other times the reason given is for social transformation – a desire to limit pagan influence and un-Christian political manoeuvring. At other times it is used to achieve change by lobbing the political process in order to impose(?) a Christian social ethos. I would not say that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I will say that Christians who have grappled for such influence and now have it are giving the press way too many opportunities to tar Christianity with a certain brush, whether that be the dumb brush, angry brush, hateful brush, ignorant brush or clueless brush. What we have seen in the last few days is certainly grounds for painting Christianity with the stupid and heartless brush.
I’m embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with the words that Pat Robinson (that’s a Wiki link for your convenience:)) communicated on live television last week regarding adoption. On the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) show called the 700 Club (Check out the discussion here) they did a special segment on adoption. They checked out few families that had adopted and then zipped back to the studio for a discussion on the issues. Robinson’s comments lacked logic, were insensitive and did not reflect the Bible’s treatment of a believer’s responsibility to orphans and the poor.
He begins with a caution and finishes on the same caution. Once one adopts they can’t simply be dropped off at the pound like a dog if it doesn’t work out. It’s a serious decision. Who would disagree? Well, probably you when you find out why he thinks it is a big decision!
He argues that they could have been influenced prior by demons and this of course means that you don’t know what behaviour will come out in time. He also tells us that they could be brain damaged. Later in the discussion he remarks or perhaps rambles: ‘[Adoption] can be a blessing if you get the right child. It becomes a part of the family and that child you love like your own. But! But!… the child can be badly damaged mentally and emotionally… not enough food, love… [The Romanian orphans] are so emotionally scarred… [Orphans] never adjust to adulthood.’
His point: it’s a lucky dip. You don’t know what you’re going to get.
Let me trace his logic through. If you don’t know what you are going to get you should refrain from adopting – this was the pervading sense that he communicated. If that is the reasoning for not adopting then you also shouldn’t choose to have your own baby through natural means, because the baby could similarly come out brain damaged, and or be socially or physically impaired in time. You never know how they will turn out, right? So don’t risk it – don’t have babies! Hmmm…
But this is foolishness. A couple does not have a child by natural means in order to create a perfect child. Of course they know that when the baby comes into the world there are many events that are out of the parents’ control that can impact how the child will grow up. Let’s be realistic, even before the baby comes into the world there are many forms of complications that can affect the subsequent life of the baby and the parents. That there might be possible future complications is no reason to refrain from having your own biological kids, nor from adopting children.
There is also a subtle, yet very hidden comment here, that those children with any sort of impairment are not desirable or wanted. What a horrible thought! That these children have no parents and are potentially damaged is precisely the grounds for which both believers and non-beleivers should consider adoption. It is not something that one turns away from, but embraces with a sense of responsibility.
Further, Robinson’s discussion partner tries to pick up the pieces and basically admits that the children are sometimes, if not often, damaged: socially, emotionally, physically and/or spiritually. But she does not shy away from her belief that it is a believer’s responsibility to look after these children. Robinson offers a patronising comment (and it was patronising!), ‘Well it’s all real lovely…’ before the lady cuts him off to rightly put him right. She said, ‘Well, it’s not lovely…’ And she is right. Adoption might be construed in the media as a fad, but let us not paint adoptive parents in some flippant light. The task that adoptive parents take on is not one that should be put in the New Year’s resolution basket along with losing 20kg and taking up water colour painting, as though adopting a child is something that you just do on a whim! Adoption isn’t something that you just do, and of the adoptive parents that I know the idea, plan and actual adoption is something that is taken just as seriously as having their own baby by natural means.
And the Bible?
He calls on the Bible to caution his viewers – count the cost he says, three times. WOW! Count the cost! I’m pretty sure that when Jesus is talking about counting the cost in Luke 14 he is not talking about adoption. Well, I suppose if adoption is a synonym for being a disciple of Jesus then he has a point, but that is far from plausible, perhaps even comical (in the sad sense).
And what does he do with this famous text: Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you (James 1:27)? Clearly nothing!
And what does he do with the very prominent usage of adoption in the Bible to understand salvation. Like this one for example: He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will… (Ephesians 1:5)? Again, clearly he doesn’t do anything about this text. He has not been able to see that he was a damaged person and that because of this God adopted him into his family through Jesus Christ. That he/we have been adopted by God through Jesus is truly a beautiful thing that we should never lose sight of.
Today, on live television, I misstated my heartfelt dedication and commitment to helping orphans. For decades, I have supported adoption, and have helped tens of thousands of children worldwide.
I wanted to say, but it didn’t come out the way I intended, that adoption is not for everyone.
The mother of three adopted children, who wrote in about her boyfriend’s issue with her children, did a wonderful, unselfish act to adopt and I respect her immensely. Yet, adoption might not be a fit for her boyfriend. If that is the case, she needs to find someone who better shares her passion for adoption.
Adoptive parents are taking on enormous responsibility, both emotionally and financially. Quite frankly, they need as much disclosure as possible about the child’s background and health to assure the best fit and be prepared.
In answering the letter writer, this is what I meant to say. If any doubt remains, I ask you to please look at what I’ve done over the years to help orphans.
I accept his apology, but unfortunately the damage is done. Few will read the apology, but millions will hear his ‘misstated comments’.
We should be careful with influence. If is a dangerously powerful thing.